Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind colleagues that a deferred Division will take place today. Members should be aware that the timings have reverted to between 11.30 am and 2 pm, though they continue to take place in the Members’ Library. Members will cast their votes by placing the completed Division slip in one of the ballot boxes provided. If a Member has a proxy vote in operation, they must not vote in person in the deferred Division; their nominated proxy should vote on their behalf. I also remind colleagues of the importance of social distancing during the deferred Division and ask them to pick up a Division slip from the Vote Office and fill it in before they reach the Library if possible. The result will be announced in the Chamber at a convenient moment after the Division is over.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Structural and Investment Funding: Transition Period

Claire Hanna: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of devolving spending in Northern Ireland of (a) structural and (b) investment funding after the end of the transition period to the Northern Ireland Executive.

Brandon Lewis: The UK shared prosperity fund will help to level up and create opportunities for people and places across the United Kingdom. The Government will co-ordinate funding on a UK-wide basis, working with the devolved Administrations and local communities to ensure that it is used most effectively. The Northern Ireland Executive and the other devolved Administrations will be represented in the fund’s governance structures to help target this funding to the people and places that are most in need.

Claire Hanna: The spending of the shared prosperity fund, according to clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, would override devolution, with no duty to consult on spend in devolved areas. We know that the internal market Bill intends to breach international law, and yesterday it was indicated that a further breach of international law was likely to come in the taxation Bill. Far from being limited and specific, it seems that disregard for the Good Friday agreement is unlimited   while people desperately want certainty and a deal. Can the Secretary of State give us any assurances that next week’s Bill will not further undermine the Northern Ireland protocol and the chances of a deal and the certainty and the stability that people so desperately want?

Brandon Lewis: If the hon. Lady looks at the clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, she will see that they are about protecting and delivering on the Good Friday agreement to ensure that there are no borders. To deliver that, it is important that we have no border not just north to south, but east to west as well. On the UK shared prosperity fund, if she looks at my answer to the substantive question, she will see that I was very clear that the devolved authorities would be part of that, but of course this is money over and above; this is extra money that we will be looking to spend—in the same way that the EU has always been able to spend— once we have left the EU to ensure that those communities have the support that we have said they would have.

Simon Hoare: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any spending requirements and demands made by and within Northern Ireland would be enhanced and likely to receive a more welcome ear in the Treasury and elsewhere were the Executive to crack ahead and create the independent fiscal council, which would act as a very convincing mouthpiece for those pleas?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a hugely important and very accurate point. I think we sometimes forget this but the fiscal council was actually first agreed back in the “Fresh Start” agreement of 2015 and recommitted to in the “New Decade, New Approach” deal of January this year. I have been talking to the Executive about this. I had hoped to see it up and running by the autumn. I think it is important that the Executive and the Department of Finance get on with this and deliver on it. It will help them for budgeting purposes and ensure that, in the same way that we have the Office for Budget responsibility and the Irish Government have an independent fiscal council, people can be clear about the transparency and understanding of the money being spent in Northern Ireland. I think it would be the right thing to do, and I am looking forward to seeing the Executive deliver it as quickly as possible.

UK-EU Future Relationship: Businesses

John McNally: What assessment he has made of the effect on businesses in Northern Ireland of negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU.

Brandon Lewis: We want a relationship with the European Union that is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and centred on free trade. We will have a relationship with our European friends—one that is inspired by our shared history and values. The whole of the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland, stands to benefit from such a trading relationship with the European Union. In fact, Northern Ireland businesses have a huge potential under the Northern Ireland protocol, and of course Northern Ireland will continue to enjoy tariff-free access to the EU market, alongside unfettered access to the whole of the UK.

John McNally: I hope you are well, Mr Speaker.
Scotland is the largest exporter of seed potatoes in the single market. It is a product on which a great many Northern Irish potato farmers rely. This has been placed under threat by the lack of equivalence between the UK and the EU after the transition period. When will the Minister confirm a date on our attaining equivalence on seed products? If he cannot give us a date, is that not more evidence that the Government do not care about Scotland’s farming communities?

Brandon Lewis: Actually, it is quite the contrary. The hon. Gentleman can look at the delivery of money last week, for farmers particularly. That is evidence of the Government’s determination to deliver on our commitment to, and our understanding of the importance of, the agriculture and farming community across the United Kingdom, with £315 million going to Northern Ireland farmers. Through the Joint Committee, we are working with the European Union on some of these final issues to ensure that we do have that free flow. We have been saying to our partners and colleagues in the EU that they need to play their part in being pragmatic about ensuring that we continue to see that sensible free flow of trade across the United Kingdom, as a sovereign nation.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: You look well, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State will recognise the importance to Northern Ireland businesses of getting agreement on the classification of qualifying goods and qualifying businesses as they relate to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the UK single market. What progress has been made on securing such agreement and on defining at-risk goods, and what measures will the Government bring forward in legislation to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses really do have unfettered access to the UK internal market?

Brandon Lewis: I should put it on record that I also think you look well, Mr Speaker.
On an equally serious note, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, this Government are committed to ensuring that Northern Ireland businesses have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why we have taken the steps that we have taken in legislating for the first phase of unfettered access; that is what those clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill are for. We are building on and learning from the discussions that we have had with businesses and the Northern Ireland Executive. We are pushing hard to secure agreement with the EU on a number of outstanding issues that relate to the protocol, including that of at-risk goods. We accept that tariffs should be paid on goods moving from Great Britain into the EU, but there should not be any tariffs on internal UK movements that begin in Great Britain and end in Northern Ireland; they are internal movements. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to comment on the progress of the negotiations, although we are keen to move through them as quickly as possible. I reassure him that we are focused on those issues and are determined to deliver in full on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful response. I am sure that he will agree that those who talk loudly about the Good Friday agreement are the people who are threatening the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland by insisting on measures that are completely unnecessary in terms of protecting the agreement. Will he therefore indicate what progress has been made in securing a commitment from the EU to a significant grace period to allow Northern Ireland businesses sufficient time to adjust to the new arrangements that will be introduced when the transition period ends on 31 December?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman identifies, quite rightly, the importance of ensuring that there is no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have accepted the sanitary and phytosanitary checks. We are working with the EU, and both the UK and EU have committed to that intensified process, as colleagues will have seen, and to resolving all outstanding issues with the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, including securing the flexibilities that we need for trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
As I said, the discussions are ongoing. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to understand that I am limited in what I can say as I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions, but we continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive around the practical implications and operational delivery. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been working with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, and with industry, traders, representative bodies and local authorities to ensure that they are engaged, supported and ready for trading from January 2021. I encourage any business that has not already done so to sign up free with the Trader Support Service.

Kirsten Oswald: The Secretary of State will know of the anger among Northern Irish businesspeople over the accusation by the ironically titled Minister for Efficiency and Transformation that they have their
“head stuck in the sand”
on Brexit. Only 30 days from the hard Brexit cliff edge, does the Secretary of State appreciate that most people will have far more sympathy with Northern Irish businessman, Stephen Kelly, who suggests that it is the Government who have their “head stuck somewhere else”? Is it not the case that Northern Ireland businesses have simply been an afterthought in his Government’s chaotic hard Brexit?

Brandon Lewis: If only the hon. Lady was talking to Northern Ireland businesses directly, as my team and I do regularly, most weeks. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), also engages with businesses in Northern Ireland, as we have been doing consistently throughout this process—including Stephen Kelly, who I do know. It is the information from businesses that fed into the Command Paper that we issued earlier in the year, as well as the guidance that we issued and the work that we are doing to ensure not just that we have unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to mainland Great Britain—I hope that she and other colleagues will support us in ensuring that it is in the United Kingdom  Internal Market Bill to deliver unfettered access, which she claims in her question to support—but also that we get a good free flow of access to ensure that the whole UK internal market can work together, including Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

Colum Eastwood: Given the fact that the Secretary of State has already admitted that the clauses removed by the Lords from the UK Internal Market Bill will break international law, and that the Irish Government, the new US President-elect and the people of Northern Ireland believe that those clauses breach the Northern Ireland protocol, will he commit today to not reinstating them in the Bill next week?

Brandon Lewis: Actually, what those clauses have been about is ensuring that we have unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to Great Britain. That is something inherent in the protocol. It plays a part in delivering on one of the key sentences in the first few paragraphs in the Northern Ireland protocol that says we will ensure that we do not disrupt the everyday lives of people in their communities. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would support us in ensuring the Northern Ireland businesses can trade in mainland Great Britain as part of the United Kingdom. That is what those clauses are about, as an insurance policy, but obviously our main focus and aim is to secure the right agreement for a wider free trade agreement with the EU, and, indeed, to work with the specialist Joint Committee.

Transition Period: Business Preparedness

Stephen Farry: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland are prepared for the end of the transition period.

Brandon Lewis: We have published guidance throughout the year and are providing extensive support to Northern Ireland businesses. For instance, as I mentioned, we have the Trader Support Service, which is backed by £200 million of funding from the UK Government, and has been well received—it has now had over 16,000 registrations. As we approach the end of the year, we will continue to provide detailed sectoral guidance and information on Government support, and we will step that up as we approach the conclusion of the negotiations to ensure that clear, accessible messages and guidance are provided as soon as possible.

Stephen Farry: With barely 700 hours to go until the end of the transition period, it is absurd that so many issues still need to be clarified. Does the Secretary of State recognise that Northern Ireland businesses require a clear legal framework in which to operate, and as such, any changes or mitigations have to be agreed with the EU under the protocol, including potentially any grace period, and that doing the opposite places Northern Ireland businesses in a very uncertain legal position going forward and will create long-term problems for them arising from such unilateral action by the Government?

Brandon Lewis: There is a range of things that businesses can be doing and should be doing now, regardless of what the outcome may be, such as signing up to the Trader Support Service. We are intensifying, and have  intensified, our work with the specialist Joint Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in supporting the clauses in the UK Internal Market Bill that will give businesses certainty by delivering unfettered access to the whole of the UK.

Jim Shannon: I have been contacted by a large number of my constituents who are involved in the agrifood sector and other businesses. With special reference to the packaging of products and the new labelling structure, I am ever mindful of the approach of 31 December, which has a cost factor for the labels as well. What information has been released for manufacturing companies to have certainty over their packaging?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that underlines why we are working with him to provide as much certainty as possible. On this particular matter, I am pleased to be able to tell him that we have recently updated our guidance on labelling changes that are required at the end of the transition period. That guidance is now available on gov.uk, and I will make sure that my office sends him the link so that he can send it on to any of those businesses that are inquiring already.

UK Transport Connections

John Lamont: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on improving transport connections within the UK.

Jane Stevenson: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on improving transport connections within the UK.

Robin Walker: The Secretary of State and I have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues regarding transport connections, which are particularly important for Northern Ireland, given its unique geography. The recently announced independent Union connectivity review will consider how connectivity across the UK can support economic growth. Both the Secretary of State and I have met Sir Peter Hendy and look forward to hearing his recommendations in the summer.

John Lamont: Does the Minister agree that good transport links between all parts of the United Kingdom are vital, and it is therefore extremely disappointing that the Scottish Government are refusing to engage with the Union connectivity review, thereby depriving my constituents of good transport links in all parts of Scotland and better links with other parts of the United Kingdom?

Robin Walker: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Every part of the United Kingdom can benefit from investment in our shared infrastructure and connectivity. Unwillingness to engage with the review risks Scotland missing out, and I would certainly urge the Scottish Government to rethink. They should follow the example of the Minister for Infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Executive, who has been engaging constructively with the review.

Jane Stevenson: My father left Northern Ireland in the 1950s and settled in Wolverhampton, which has a large Northern Irish community. It is the same for many communities across Great Britain, including in Scotland. Does the Minister agree that excellent transport links to Northern Ireland are absolutely crucial, and will he make that clear to Sir Peter Hendy as part of the Union connectivity review?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I recognise, having many Irish and Northern Irish constituents myself, that it is vital that there are excellent transport links across the Irish Sea for trade, for tourism, for the Union and to bring families together. The review will make recommendations on how best to improve connectivity across the UK, including across the Irish Sea, and in the long term certainly we will be making that case to the review.

Sammy Wilson: The main threat to our connectivity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom over the winter is the unprofitability of airlines due to the covid restrictions. In the medium term, new routes need to be opened to business centres in Europe. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will discuss with the Treasury, first, the reduction or suspension of air passenger duty for a limited period of time and, secondly, what help can be given to opening new routes between Northern Ireland and business centres in Europe?

Robin Walker: The Secretary of State and I work closely with colleagues across Government and in the Executive to support the Northern Ireland economy and make the case on air connectivity. There have been discussions with the Department for Transport and, indeed, the Treasury on those matters. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Treasury is reviewing the air passenger duty issue.

Covid-19: UK-wide Response

Shailesh Vara: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on co-ordinating a UK-wide response to the covid-19 outbreak.

Robin Walker: The Government and the devolved Administrations continue to work closely together to ensure a co-ordinated approach across the United Kingdom. As set out in our joint statement of 25 September, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations hold a
“shared commitment to suppressing the virus to the lowest possible level and keeping it there”.
Today’s news about a vaccine will be welcomed across every part of the United Kingdom. I was pleased we could agree a united approach to Christmas planning last week. Although each devolved Administration control their public health policy, we have been co-ordinating positively on our response to covid throughout the year.

Shailesh Vara: Coronavirus knows no boundaries, and it is absolutely vital that the UK Government, the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly work together to deal with it. Does my hon. Friend agree that  it is absolutely crucial that we have effective co-operation—north-south and east-west—and a co-ordinated approach to dealing with this pandemic?

Robin Walker: I strongly endorse the words of my hon. Friend. This Government are determined to work together with the Northern Irish Executive and the Irish Government to ensure that measures safeguard the health and wellbeing of UK and Irish citizens. There is an existing memorandum of understanding between the chief medical officers for Northern Ireland and for Ireland, which formalises co-ordination and co-operation between the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive in relation to covid-19. The Secretary of State continues to hold regular discussions with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as well as the Irish Government, to co-operate on covid issues.

Paul Girvan: With the positive news that the UK will commence covid-19 vaccinations from 14 December, will the Secretary of State commit that if logistical support from Her Majesty’s armed forces is required in Northern Ireland, it will be provided speedily and with the same resources as the rest of our nation?
I would just like to take a little bit of a liberty, Mr Speaker, and take this opportunity to express my deep disappointment that once again the six-time world superbike champion and South Antrim native Jonathan Rea MBE was overlooked for the shortlist of the BBC’s sports personality of the year. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree with me on that.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Minister might, as well.

Robin Walker: I fear to tread in such a contentious area. The hon. Gentleman is right that the news on a vaccine is good news for the whole United Kingdom. We want to ensure that it is rolled out effectively across the whole United Kingdom, and we shall certainly make representations to ensure that that includes Northern Ireland.

Integrated Education

Alex Cunningham: What assessment he has made of progress towards integrated education in Northern Ireland.

Robin Walker: The Government continue to be committed to integrated education in Northern Ireland, which is why we provided £500 million of funding to the Northern Ireland Executive for the development of integrated and shared schools as part of the “Fresh Start” agreement. The Executive have confirmed that they have so far spent £31 million to the end of 2019-20, and the full £500 million of “Fresh Start” capital has been committed to the end of 2025-26. We want to see investment delivered quickly in Northern Ireland, and the establishment of an independent fiscal council would support the Assembly to hold the Executive to account on delivery, as well as on other fiscal and budgetary matters.

Alex Cunningham: Who we learn with and live alongside could scarcely be more fundamental to how we see the world. Integrated education is one of the major unfulfilled  legacies of the Good Friday agreement. Is it not time to seize the opportunity presented by the “New Decade, New Approach” deal and together drive real progress on shared education that will build a fairer society?

Robin Walker: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes.

Karin Smyth: Last March, I was pleased to host the Integrated Education Fund here in Westminster. We had a very positive cross-party discussion with the fund about how we all support our shared desire to ensure that every child in Northern Ireland gets a good education in a good school. Despite the pandemic, good progress is being made on the ground with the parties to support children. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister commit to doing all they can to support them in delivering this long overdue legacy work?

Robin Walker: I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of this issue. As she knows, under the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, the Executive agreed to establish a programme for government, including an
“Enhanced strategic focus and supporting actions on educating our children and young people together in the classroom, in order to build a shared and integrated society.”
I have met some of the Northern Irish parties to discuss progress on delivering shared and integrated education, and I share their ambition to speed up delivery. I believe that the establishment of an independent fiscal council would help to accelerate that delivery.

Transition Period: UK Trade

Virginia Crosbie: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that Northern Ireland businesses have unfettered access to trade with the rest of the UK after the transition period.

Robin Walker: Our commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the UK, as outlined in NDNA and the 2019 manifesto, remains unequivocal. We have brought forward draft regulations that establish the definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods, ensuring no changes in how Northern Ireland businesses move goods directly to the rest of the UK from 1 January 2021. The UKIM Bill will ensure that qualifying Northern Ireland goods will continue to be placed on the whole UK market, even where the protocol applies different rules in Northern Ireland. Our priority for a longer-term qualifying goods regime is to confer the benefits of unfettered access specifically on Northern Ireland businesses. That is being developed in close co-operation with Northern Ireland businesses and the Executive and will come into force in 2021.

Virginia Crosbie: More than 100,000 freight units destined to and from Northern Ireland transit through Holyhead port each year. Unfettered access is key to not only the Northern Ireland economy but the Anglesey and Welsh economy. Can the Minister confirm that at no stage will this Government allow a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,  and that that is just as important as avoiding a tariffs and customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is right, and I know that her constituency of Ynys Môn plays a vital part in the links between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The protocol was designed to address a particular set of problems in a way that upholds the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is a practical solution to avoid a hard border with Ireland, while ensuring that the UK, including Northern Ireland, leaves the EU as a whole. The protocol is also clear that the UK must function as a single customs territory in practice, and that means fulfilling our commitment to delivering unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the Great Britain market as well.

Good Friday Agreement: Implementation

Alison McGovern: What steps he is taking to help ensure the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement.

Brandon Lewis: The Government remain steadfast in our commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and we will continue to support the institutions in delivering peace and prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland. A key institution created as a result of the agreement is the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was restored this year following the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement in January. The best way forward for Northern Ireland lies in strong devolved institutions that support the Executive and Assembly to deliver on the issues that matter to the people of Northern Ireland.

Alison McGovern: The Good Friday agreement comes of age today, as it became effective 21 years ago. It provided a platform for the development of excellent economic and social relationships between Northern Ireland and Merseyside. What conversations has the Secretary of State had to ensure that nothing that happens in the next month puts that progress at risk?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. That is exactly what the clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill are about—ensuring that businesses in Northern Ireland continue to trade as part of the United Kingdom with unfettered access, which is of benefit to companies in Liverpool, so I hope she will support the Bill when it comes back to the House.

Louise Haigh: Last week alone, three journalists were issued with violent threats by loyalist paramilitaries. The BBC has seen evidence that loyalist paramilitary groups have over 12,500 members, and there are more dissident groups than during the troubles. Does the Secretary of State agree that a toxic combination of deprivation and a failure to deal with the legacy of the past has created a fertile breeding ground for paramilitary groups?

Brandon Lewis: I am sure the hon. Lady would agree with me that obviously there is no place for violence or threats of any description to anybody in Northern  Ireland, including media and political players in Northern Ireland. It is completely unacceptable. There is no excuse for it, and actually arguing that it is in any way acceptable because of any other particular issue is, I think, a fallacy and the wrong position to take. I have to say that we are making huge investments. There has obviously been about £20 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive this year, between the block grant and the extra support that the UK Government have put in, on top of having what are financially the biggest city and growth deals in the United Kingdom to ensure that we are levelling up. That is something we are determined to do for the people of Northern Ireland, as we are for the rest of the United Kingdom.

Louise Haigh: On Monday, the Secretary of State told the House that he had ceased engaging on legacy issues at the request of victims groups, but he knows that the largest cross-community victims group in Northern Ireland, the WAVE Trauma Centre, has expressed serious concerns at his lack of engagement and, indeed, has described him as “dangerously deluded”. Can he confirm to the House exactly when he will meet those at the WAVE Trauma Centre and when he will present an update on legacy proposals to this House?

Brandon Lewis: I am a little bit surprised by what the hon. Lady just outlined, as it was actually the WAVE group that, back in March, asked us to pause on engagement as it and its members were focused on covid, which I think was a reasonable position. I think it was right, as people were focused on covid. However, as I have said a few times to the hon. Lady and to this House, I think that action on legacy, which is such a sensitive and important issue, to make sure we can help Northern Ireland move forward and put the troubles in the past is an important thing to do. It is also important to get that information for the victims and the families of victims who have been looking for that information now for far too long. We are determined to do that by engaging with the people of Northern Ireland, as well as our partners in the Irish Government and the United States and the political parties in Northern Ireland, and when we have done that, I will come back to this House. However, this has to be something that is done with the support of and engagement with the people of Northern Ireland.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Chris Green: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 December.

Boris Johnson: Today, I am proudly wearing purple to celebrate the International Day for Disabled People, which is of course tomorrow. Next year, we will publish our national strategy for disabled people, which will be the most ambitious intervention in this area for a generation, putting fairness at the heart of the Government’s work and levelling up so that everybody has the opportunity fully to participate in the life of this country.
I know that the whole House will want to join me in welcoming the fantastic news that the MHRA—the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency—has formally authorised the Pfizer vaccine for covid-19. The vaccine will begin to be made available across the UK from next week. I would like to pay tribute to and to thank all those who have made this possible. It is the protection of vaccines that will ultimately allow us to reclaim our lives and get our economy moving again.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Chris Green: I would like to share in the congratulations of the Prime Minister on the creation of this new vaccine and the speed with which it has been got out, and to give those congratulations especially to the engineers, technicians and scientists who have delivered it. I believe that we should support the widest distribution and take-up of safe and effective medicines, but does my right hon Friend agree with me that it should always be taken on a wholly voluntary basis by individuals and families?

Boris Johnson: Absolutely. I strongly urge people to take up the vaccine, but it is no part of our culture or our ambition in this country to make vaccines mandatory. That is not how we do things.

Keir Starmer: May I join the Prime Minister in his comments on disabled people?
Like the Prime Minister, can I start with the fantastic news about the licensing of a vaccine? This pandemic has caused so much grief and so much loss, but we are now a big step closer to the end of the tunnel. Like the Prime Minister, can I express my thanks and the thanks of everyone on these Benches and across the House to all the scientists who have worked on this and to everybody who has taken part in the trials. Delivering a vaccine fairly, quickly and safely will now be the next major challenge facing the country, and whatever our differences across this House, we have all a duty to play our part in this national effort and to reassure the public about the safety of the vaccine.
This morning, a priority list has been published for the first phase of the roll-out. We understand that around 800,000 doses will soon be available, and that is good news. Because of the two doses that will be required, that means 400,000 people can be vaccinated in the first batch. So can the Prime Minister tell the House: who does he expect to receive the vaccine next week?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point about the roll-out, and I will perhaps update the House on what the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has concluded so far. The priority list will be: residents in a care home for older adults, and their carers, in order to stop transmission; those of 80 years of age or older; front-line health care and social care workers; all those of 75 years of age and over; all those of 70 years of age and over; and clinically extremely vulnerable individuals. There is then a list that I am sure the House will want to study closely, but that I believe represents common sense.
It is important at this stage for us all to recognise that this is unquestionably good news—it is very, very good  news—but it is by no means the end of the story; it is not the end of our national struggle against coronavirus. That is why it is important that the package of moderately tough measures that the House voted for last night—the tiering system—is followed across the country, because that is how we will continue to beat the virus.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister has referenced the priorities for the first phase, and as he said, the top two priority groups are residents in care homes for older adults and their carers, all those of 80 years of age and over, and front-line health and social care workers. I am not criticising that list in the slightest, but it is obvious that that is more than 400,000 people. The Prime Minister will understand how anxious people in those particular groups are, after having sacrificed so much. Will he give the House the answer to the question that they will be asking this morning, which is: by when does he expect that all people in those two top groups can expect to be vaccinated?

Boris Johnson: At this stage it is very important that people do not get their hopes up too soon about the speed with which we will be able to roll out this vaccine. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said, it is beginning from next week, and we are expecting several million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine before the end of the year. We will then be rolling it out as fast as we possibly can. That is why I put so much emphasis on the continuing importance of the tiering system and of mass community testing, at the same time as we go forward through these tough winter months. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to ask about timetables, but at the same time as we roll out the vaccine over the next few weeks, we will need to keep that tough tiering and testing regime in place.

Keir Starmer: May I press the Prime Minister a bit further about the plan for care homes? I do so because we all want this to work. The top category is residents in care homes, and this will obviously be a huge concern for many people. This morning the Welsh Government have already raised some serious practical problems about the delivery of vaccines into care homes, bearing in mind the temperatures at which the vaccines have to be stored. The Prime Minister must know that this is going to be a four-nation problem, and he must be aware that this problem will arise. We all want to overcome that problem, and in that spirit I ask the Prime Minister what plans he has put in place to address the particular problems of getting the vaccine safely and quickly into care homes, given the practical difficulties of doing so, and the anxiety that those in care homes will have about getting it quickly?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right to raise the issue of care homes and our ability to distribute this particular type of vaccine rapidly into care homes, because it does need to be kept at minus 70°, as I think the House understands, so there are logistical challenges to be overcome to get vulnerable people the access to the vaccine that they need. We are working on it with all the devolved Administrations in order to ensure that the NHS across the country—it is the NHS that will be in the lead—is  able to distribute it as fast and as sensibly as possible to the most vulnerable groups.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise that particular logistical difficulty. That is why it is also important that we get the AstraZeneca vaccine, which we hope will also come on stream. While he is paying tribute to those who have been involved in the vaccines, perhaps he could also pay tribute to the work of the vaccine taskforce, which secured the deal with Pfizer and which he, I think, criticised only a few weeks ago.

Keir Starmer: I pay tribute to everybody who has got us this far, and we will work with all of them to get us where we need to go next. This has to be something that we all pull together to deliver as quickly and safely as possible over the next few months. I have made that offer to the Prime Minister before, and I do it again.
It is in that vein that I turn to the next question, which is about public confidence in the vaccine. That is a real cause for concern, because it is going to be crucial to the success of getting this rolled out across the country and getting our economy back up and running. As the Prime Minister knows, we have the highest regulatory and medical safety standards in the world, but it is really important that we do everything possible to counter dangerous, frankly life-threatening disinformation about vaccines. The Opposition have called for legislation to be introduced to clamp down on this, with financial penalties for companies that fail to act. Will the Prime Minister work with us on this and bring forward emergency legislation in the coming days, which I think the whole House would support?

Boris Johnson: We are, of course, working to tackle all kinds of disinformation across the internet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to single out the anti-vaxxers and those who I think are totally wrong in their approach, and he is right to encourage take-up of vaccines across the country. We will be publishing a paper very shortly on online harms designed to tackle the very disinformation that he speaks of.

Keir Starmer: May I also urge the Prime Minister, once the Government have a communications plan for the vaccine, to share it with the House so that we can all say the same thing in the same way to the country and thus encourage as many people as possible to take up the vaccine?
The arrival of the vaccine is obviously wonderful news, but it will come too late for many who have lost their jobs already. I want to turn to the collapse of the Arcadia Group and Debenhams in the last 48 hours. That has put 25,000 jobs at risk and obviously caused huge anxiety to many families at the worst possible time, and it threatens to rip the heart out of many high streets in our towns and cities. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what he is going to do now to protect the jobs and pensions of all those affected by these closures?

Boris Johnson: We are looking at what we can do to protect all the jobs that are being lost currently across the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has written to the Insolvency Service to look at the conduct of the Arcadia directors, and we will be doing everything we can to restore the high streets of this  country with our £1 billion high streets fund and the levelling-up fund. But I must say that I think it is a bit much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should attack the economic consequences of the fight against coronavirus when last night neither he nor his troops could be bothered to vote for measures—sensible, balanced measures—that would open up the economy and allow businesses to trade. How can he attack the economic consequences of our battle against coronavirus when he will not even support measures to open up the economy?

Keir Starmer: When I abstain, I come to the House and explain. When the Prime Minister abstains, he runs away to Afghanistan and gives the taxpayer a £20,000 bill.
On the question of jobs, there are serious questions that need to be answered about the collapse of these businesses. I do not want the Prime Minister to deflect from that and what it means for these many families. This is not an isolated incident; over 200,000 retail jobs have been lost this year—that is 200,000 individuals and their families—and 20,000 stores have been closed on our high street, and that is before the latest restrictions. I suspect that if we had seen that scale of job losses in any other sector, there would have been much greater action already.
I urge the Prime Minister to take this seriously; do not deflect. As well as providing emergency support, will he work with us, the trade unions and the sector to finally bring forward a comprehensive plan to save retail jobs and to provide the sector with the much greater support it needs through this crisis? These are real people, Prime Minister, with real jobs and families, who are facing the sack. They really need to hear from you.

Boris Johnson: We are, of course, supporting every job we possibly can, as well as supporting every life and every livelihood, with a £200 billion programme. I would take the right hon. and learned Gentleman more seriously, frankly, if he actually could be bothered to vote for a moderate programme to keep the virus down and open up the economy. We are getting on with our programme of rolling out the vaccine and sensible tiering measures, in addition to which we are delivering 40 more hospitals and 20,000 more police officers. He talks about abstention. When it came to protecting our veterans from unfair prosecution, he chose to abstain. When it came to protecting the people of this country from coronavirus at this critical moment, he told his troops to abstain. Captain Hindsight is rising rapidly up the ranks and has become General Indecision. That is what is happening, I am afraid, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He dithers; we get on with the job.

Imran Ahmad Khan: Next week marks one year since the Prime Minister won a mighty majority. His bold vision turned the red wall blue, ensuring our communities would no longer be neglected. As part of the Prime Minister’s plan to level up, a new infrastructure bank has been promised. Mr Speaker, you know Wakefield as the crossroads of the kingdom—our cathedral spire the tallest in God’s own county; historically, the principal city of West Yorkshire; and the pulsating, oxygenating heart of the red wall. All make it the perfect city for the new bank’s home. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister  commit to establish the new infrastructure bank in Wakefield and restore my city’s glory?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is a magnificent and doughty campaigner for Wakefield. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will listen very closely to his call for the national infrastructure bank to be established in Wakefield. My hon. Friend should wait on events.

Ian Blackford: This morning, for the first time in months, people have woken up with a genuine sense of hope. The news on the vaccine approval is the news we have all been waiting for. For many, however, that hope on the horizon remains far too distant. There are millions who still have not had a single penny of support from this UK Government. As others rightly received help, they received none. Prime Minister, yesterday I met ExcludedUK, which represents many of those 3 million citizens. For the past nine months, the excluded have been living without any help and without any hope. It is now, tragically, costing lives. Prime Minister, they told me something genuinely shocking. They are aware of eight people who have taken their lives in the past 10 days—eight people in 10 days. Prime Minister, we are now a little over three weeks from Christmas. These people need help. Will the Prime Minister commit to looking again at the support package for the excluded, to ensure that no one, but no one, is left behind?

Boris Johnson: I obviously sympathise very much with those who have taken their lives and their families. This has been a very tough time for the country. We are investing massively in mental health support across the country, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, which flows through, in Barnett consequentials, to Scotland. We have put in a huge package of support. He knows this, but I must repeat this for self-employed people across the country. I know there are hard-to-reach people, but they are also supported with the increases in universal credit and the many other means of support that are currently on offer. When we look at the overall level of support this Government have given the people across the country, it compares favourably with any other Government around the world.

Ian Blackford: I have to say, and I do this with regret, that that simply is not good enough. These people need help, and I am asking the Prime Minister to think very carefully about this. This has been an abject failure by this UK Government, and the Prime Minister has been missing in action. The Government have U-turned on almost everything else, so why cannot the Prime Minister and the Chancellor change their minds on their support for these 3 million people? These are people working in construction, creative industries, events, education, hospitality, retail and healthcare. They have not just been left behind; they have been ignored for nine months. The Chancellor has repeatedly dodged this issue. ExcludedUK has not been offered one formal meeting with a Government Minister. Will the Prime Minister commit today to a meeting and working with ExcludedUK on a meaningful package of support, or is he simply going to abandon these people three weeks from Christmas?

Boris Johnson: We have abandoned nobody and we are continuing to support people. In addition to the support I have already mentioned, we have announced nearly £400 million to support vulnerable children and their families through the winter. We have increased universal credit, as I just mentioned to the House, increased the local housing allowance and provided billions more to local authorities to help those who are hardest to reach. I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that the best way to help the self-employed, and to help the economy of this whole country, is to get us moving again with the package of measures that the House voted for last night to allow retail to start up again and to allow business to start up again—

Patrick Grady: Shame.

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman says it is shameful. We on the Government side of the House do not think retail is shameful. We want businesses to open up again, and that is the nature of the package that was voted for last night, which I think was quite right. It is a great, great shame that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) could not bring himself to support it.

Thomas Tugendhat: At this time of enormous pressure on our healthcare, I welcome the Government’s and the NHS’s continued commitment to the new combined medical facility in Edenbridge. Will the Prime Minister confirm to me that the sale of the existing Edenbridge and District War Memorial Hospital, which was built by public donation about a century ago, will now help to fund the new building? He is investing £20 million in the medicines and diagnostic manufacturing transformation fund to benefit Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, so will he join me in welcoming the skill of all those in the NHS and, indeed, the Health Secretary in making historical donations work for our communities today?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I can, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign. Any decision to allow for the sale of the hospital is, of course, a matter for the local clinical commissioning group, but I know that he fully supports the £12 million that we put in for the development of a new health and wellbeing centre for Edenbridge.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Liz Saville Roberts.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Llefarydd. I would like to add my voice to those welcoming the licensing of the vaccine; this really is a ray of light in dark times.
Last week, the Prime Minister’s Government published their statement of funding, showing a reduction in the amount that Wales receives from transport spend in England, from 80.9% to 36.6%. This reveals in black and white the iniquity of the rail betrayal being inflicted on Wales. Welsh taxpayers are paying for English transport and HS2, but we do not get a fair return. Will he inform the House how much investment he is funnelling away from Wales due to his Government’s decision to label this white elephant an England and Wales scheme, despite not a single inch of the railway being  in Wales?

Boris Johnson: I simply fail to recognise the characterisation that the right hon. Lady makes of investment across the whole of the UK. The Welsh Government will receive an additional £1.3 billion next year. We are providing £240 million more to support Welsh farmers and £2.1 million to support fisheries in Wales. The last time I looked at transport in Wales, the Welsh Labour Government spent £144 million on plans for an M4 bypass, which they then junked.

Robin Millar: The people of Aberconwy would like to thank the Prime Minister for his early Christmas present in this vaccine. Like many presents, we might not have made it, but this Government—this Union—could afford to buy it for this country. I was in Llanrwst this Saturday, talking with small businesses that have had to deal with flooding in February and the pandemic since March. All they want to do is trade. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Y Siop Flodau, Siop Sioned and Emma James Cakes for battling through a really difficult 2020? Does he agree that this news of a vaccine and its licensing gives real hope to these three women, these three entrepreneurs, and thousands like them—hope for a better 2021?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. I congratulate the three female entrepreneurs whom my hon. Friend mentioned. They will be helped by the vaccine, they will be allowed to do business again, and what a shame it is that our programme, which was sensibly and safely to open up the economy, was not supported by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mark Hendrick: The Prime Minister has put at risk the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland after promising the people of this country that he would not. He promised the country a world-beating test, track and trace system, but conveniently forgot to provide the track and trace part of the promise. He promised an oven-ready deal with the EU to win the 2019 general election, but we look like having no deal. When will the Prime Minister follow through and deliver on his promises, instead of behaving like a second-hand car salesman?

Boris Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman wants to keep this country in the EU, which I think was the gist of what he was saying, he will be sorely disappointed and so will the Labour party.

Matt Vickers: It is said that Britain is a nation of shopkeepers, and in Stockton we are proud to have some of the best retailers in the country. They have had a tough year. They are grateful for the support that they have received from the Government, but remain concerned about the future of business rates. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain committed to a fundamental review of business rates, and will he join me in encouraging people to get down the local high street and shop local this Christmas?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend reminds me that it is Small Business Saturday this Saturday. Everybody should be shopping local. I can also tell him that the Treasury is considering the responses to the call for evidence on business rates ahead of the review’s conclusion in the spring.

Alex Davies-Jones: We all know that it will take a long time for many industries to recover from the impact of coronavirus. The aviation sector and its supply chain, which support almost a quarter of a million jobs, have been uniquely impacted. Many workers and their families at GE Aviation in Pontypridd have been financially ruined. Sadly, that is a familiar scenario for families up and down the country. The Prime Minister urgently needs to wake up to the situation. Will he therefore commit to a sector-specific support deal to save our aviation industry before it is too late?

Boris Johnson: We are doing a huge amount to support our aviation industry, but I appreciate the stress and difficulties that many families are in at the moment because of the threats to that sector, which are global, alas, because people are just not flying in the way that they were before the pandemic. I have every hope that it will bounce back very strongly, particularly in this country, which is a world leader in aviation, once we get the economy moving again, as I hope we can.

Liam Fox: In North Somerset, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy, providing over 60% of all our jobs. Post covid, we will require a private sector, small business-led recovery. Will the Prime Minister consider a new discipline within the Government in the form of a small business test, so that every tax, regulation and bit of legislation is measured against whether it will provide support for that sector, which will be vital to our post-covid recovery?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent suggestion. He is a great champion of small business. Every measure that the Government produce is judged by the effect or impact it will have on businesses large and small. As he knows, we are also providing for these particularly difficult circumstances about £100 billion in business support—the bounce back loans and many other forms of support—but the best thing for businesses large and small is for us to shop local, as I said earlier, and to allow the economy cautiously and prudently to reopen.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I want to congratulate the Prime Minister, as I think next week marks his first year in post. However, in that time: over 71,000 covid deaths, the highest rate in Europe; over £2 trillion in debt, with the worst-performing economy in the G7; failing Brexit negotiations; and at least £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money spent on contracts for Tory friends and donors. At the same time, he has whipped his MPs to vote against meals for hungry children. Which one of these achievements is he most proud of?

Boris Johnson: I would take the hon. Lady’s point more seriously if she and her party could be bothered to vote for measures—[Interruption.]

Emma Lewell-Buck: I did.

Boris Johnson: I am sorry—she defied the Labour Whip. Forgive me, Mr Speaker. She defied the injunction to dither from the ditherer-in-chief. She did not obey his  instruction to dither. I would take her more seriously if her party leader would vote for measures that would open up the economy while protecting lives across the UK.

Karl McCartney: I would like to thank my right hon. Friend and his Cabinet colleagues for last week granting my request to fund the North Hykeham relief road, the final part of the eastern bypass around my constituency of Lincoln. I look forward to seeing internal combustion engine vehicles gliding over its smooth tarmac surface for many decades to come.
As the Prime Minister will know, my constituents have made their views clear to me on the recent decisions on lockdown and the new tier system, as they normally and refreshingly do. Lincolnshire is a very big space, so although my county colleagues succumbed to the wily charms of the Secretary of State for Health last night, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider allowing local decision makers the chance to set the tier systems locally? After all, local decision makers know their patches far better than any Whitehall official. Local businesses in Lincoln, including some ExcludedUK members who have yet to receive any support, are desperate to get back to work and to fire up our UK economy.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I repeat what I said to the House several times yesterday afternoon. Of course we want to reflect local conditions as closely and accurately as we can in taking our decisions about tiering, but we must look at the entire national picture. On his point about internal combustion engines, I would just remind him that a hydrogen engine can also be an internal combustion engine.

Wendy Chamberlain: My constituent was diagnosed with ME in 2019, and earlier this year her employer agreed that she was no longer able to work and to do the job she loved. She applied for the personal independence payment, but the Department for Work and Pensions has ruled that she is fit to work. It has not engaged with her previous employer, who has a wealth of evidence to the contrary, and has reached its own decision. Her life has been devastated by this diagnosis. She told me:
“The PIP process is predicated on being able to stand up for yourself, and as a disabled person I cannot do this.”
Will the Prime Minister meet me to ensure that our benefits system works for sufferers of chronic fatigue and does not limit decisions to single points of evidence?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. She is raising an important issue. I know that many people suffer from the syndrome that she describes, and I will ensure that she gets a proper meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss her objectives.

Scott Mann: Some in the media discuss levelling up only through the prism of the north-south divide. However, Cornwall has pockets of deprivation, and many communities in my constituency also need investment and support. I welcome the Government’s announcement of the £4 billion levelling-up fund and the decision to review the Green Book so that  projects outside London and the south-east are more likely to benefit from Government investment. However, in the light of the new spending commitments, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the shared prosperity fund is separate to the levelling-up fund, that there will be an announcement on that soon, and that the fund will be simpler and less time consuming for small businesses to access than the onerous EU schemes it is replacing?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is completely right about the importance of the new UK shared prosperity fund. It will be different from the levelling-up fund and we are going to work closely with him and with people in Cornwall to ensure that we use the additional funding best for the needs of people and communities in Cornwall.

Richard Thomson: This week, the Scottish Government announced a £500 bonus scheme for our health and social care heroes who have helped to care for us through the pandemic. The Scottish Conservatives have been trying to claim some reflected credit for that policy over the past few hours. The Prime Minister is not responsible for health in Scotland, but he is responsible for it in England, so will he put his Government’s money where his Scottish colleagues’ mouths clearly are and match that bonus initiative for health and social care workers in England? Will he instruct the Chancellor to ensure that, whenever a bonus scheme like that is introduced, the Treasury will not try to snaffle back the tax from it, but let it be paid tax-free?

Boris Johnson: On the last point, that is a matter for the Scottish Government, who have the fiscal freedom to do that. I thank health and social care workers in Scotland and across the whole country, and I am proud of the increases we have been able to put in—12.8% over the past three years, and a pay rise for 1 million people in the NHS, as part of the biggest ever investment in the NHS, even before covid began. This investment will continue under this Government.

Philip Dunne: In 10 days’ time, the Government are hosting the United Nations climate summit, ahead of COP26 next year. I urge the Prime Minister not to curb his enthusiasm for the environment. Will he show international leadership by setting out an ambitious but achievable target for  emissions in 2030 as the UK’s nationally determined contribution on the path to net zero Britain?

Boris Johnson: I am proud that the UK led the way in instituting a target of net zero by 2050; of all the developed nations, we were the first. We are looking at our nationally determined contribution, which will be extremely ambitious and will be published around the time of the climate summit on 12 December this year.

Drew Hendry: The Prime Minister mentioned universal credit earlier. His and the Chancellor’s decision to increase UC by £20 a week during the pandemic was an admission of what my constituents have known for years: UC simply is not enough to live on. In January, his Government will cap the benefits of thousands of UC claimants; the average losses will be £250 a month, mainly to families with children. He already knows that UC is not enough to live on, so will he now commit to scrap the cap and guarantee to continue the £20 a week uplift? Or is he going to throw these families to the wolves, too, just like the 3 million excluded?

Boris Johnson: I just repeat the point I made earlier about the huge sums the Government have invested in looking after families’ lives and livelihoods across the whole of the UK—this is well north of £200 billion now. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there has been a UC uplift of £1,000. We will continue to support families across this country throughout the pandemic, but the objective must be, as I hope he would agree, to get the economy moving again and get people back into work in the way that everybody would want. It is a fact that under this Government, despite all the difficulties we have faced, the unemployment rate is lower than that in France, Spain, Italy, Canada and the United States. We will continue to work to look after every job that we can.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Arcadia and Debenhams: Business Support and Job Retention

Ed Miliband: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on support for business and the retention of jobs on the high street in light of the announcement of Arcadia entering administration and Debenhams going into liquidation.

Paul Scully: Speaking as the retail Minister, let me say that I hope the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) realises that although the Secretary of State is not here, we take this incredibly seriously. That is why I want to focus on the detail, because it is a worrying time for the retail sector, particularly for those affected by the announcements this week.
On Monday, Arcadia Group Ltd, which employs approximately 13,000 people, appointed administrators, who are assessing all options available to the group. They will honour orders made over the black Friday weekend. No redundancies have yet been announced and existing sales channels will continue to operate while administrators evaluate options. The Secretary of State has written to the Insolvency Service asking that it expedites consideration of the administrators’ report. Yesterday, Debenhams, which employs approximately 12,000 people, announced the decision of administrators to wind down the company. No redundancies have been announced and existing sales channels will continue to operate while administrators evaluate options. We know that this will be a worrying time for employees and their families, and we stand ready to support them. I pay a particular tribute to the hard-working staff, who have kept these well recognised businesses going in difficult times for so long.
Although the Government have no role in the strategic direction or management of private retail companies, we are in regular contact with both companies and the administrators in order to understand fully the situation they are facing. The coronavirus crisis has made life difficult for retailers such as Arcadia and Debenhams, particularly those that were already facing challenging trading conditions before the pandemic. We acted quickly at the start of the pandemic to deliver one of the most generous and comprehensive economic packages in the world. It included: the coronavirus job retention scheme, which up to 30 September had provided £7.7 billion-worth of support to companies in the retail and wholesale sector; removing all eligible properties in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors from business rates for 12 months—that is worth more than £10 billion; cash grants of up to £25,000 for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with a rateable value of between £15,000 and £51,000; more than £50 billion in business loans, which supported 9.6 million jobs and provided flexibility; and legislation to protect commercial tenants from eviction.
Through the plan for jobs, we have also announced a series of measures to protect, support and create jobs, including our £2 billion kickstart scheme and a doubling of the number of frontline work coaches, which will be important in this situation in particular. The Government  have committed to supporting the retail sector, and we are working closely with industry through these unprecedented times, particularly to ensure the safe reopening of non-essential retail today. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary encouraged local authorities to allow shops to open for extended hours, to accommodate more shoppers safely in the lead-up to Christmas. I will continue to work with the sector to meet future challenges. Indeed, I will co-chair the next meeting of the Retail Sector Council tomorrow to discuss our strategic approach to the sector. I have regular retail calls, including one last week, with representatives from Arcadia among the retailers on that call. We are confident that the sector has the skills, knowledge and drive to bounce back.

Ed Miliband: Let me join the Minister in expressing deep sympathy for those who are at risk of losing their jobs. The test of Government, and indeed the House, is whether that sympathy translates into action, so I have four specific questions for him.
First, Philip Green owes workers at Arcadia a moral duty. His family took from the company a dividend worth £1.2 billion, the largest in UK history, more than three times the size of the pension deficit. Workers at Arcadia should not pay the price of Philip Green’s greed, so will the Minister now publicly call for Philip Green to make good any shortfall in the pension scheme, and will he ensure that the Pensions Regulator takes all possible steps to make sure that that happens?
Secondly, we need to learn lessons. In the summer, Labour tabled amendments to the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Bill to make pension fund holders priority creditors when businesses went bust. The Minister said it was not necessary. Does he now agree that that was a mistake, that that change would have better protected the pensions at Arcadia and that this should be put right through legislation in the future?
Thirdly, on the workers at Debenhams and Arcadia facing redundancy, given the scale of redundancies and the grim economic backdrop, will the Minister look at providing specific and targeted help for them to get back into work? Fourthly, we have an emergency on our high streets, with an estimated 20,000 shops closing and 200,000 workers losing their jobs since the economic crisis began. While we welcome the support that has been provided, will he recognise that the Government must do more: extend the rent evictions moratorium beyond December, when it is due to expire; increase support for hospitality businesses, which was called for across the House yesterday; and address the massive disadvantage that high street businesses face around business rates compared with online retailers?
Today is a day of great news on the vaccine, but the Government have a massive responsibility to preserve the businesses and jobs we will need on the other side of this crisis. They are still not acting on a scale that meets the economic emergency our country faces. They need to do so.

Paul Scully: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising some really important points. On pension schemes and support for those facing redundancy, the majority of defined pension schemes are run effectively. We are fortunate to have a robust and flexible system of pension protection in the UK. The independent Pensions Regulator has a range of powers to protect pension  schemes, and it works closely with those involved. For schemes where the employer goes insolvent, the Pension Protection Fund is there to help protect the members. Anybody already in receipt of a pension will continue to be paid, and other members will receive at least Pension Protection Fund compensation levels. The Pension Protection Fund is confident that its funding plan investment approach positions it well to weather the current market volatility and future challenges.
It would not be appropriate at this stage for Ministers to comment on individual cases, which are a matter for the regulator. However, in respect of staff facing possible redundancy, the Department for Work and Pensions’ rapid response service has been in ongoing conversations with Debenhams and has now been in contact with Arcadia. Both have been offered support by the rapid response service, including connecting people to jobs in the labour market, helping with job search—including CV writing, interview skills, where to find jobs and how to apply for them—helping to identify transferable skills and skills gaps linked to the local labour market and what benefits they may get and how to claim. I talked about the fact that we have doubled the number of workplace support staff in Jobcentre Plus. Clearly, knowing where the big stores are, for Debenhams in particular, we will be able to offer that sort of targeted support.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about his proposed changes to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill. This was a matter of balance, because elevating pension debts, which can often be quite large, will by its very nature dilute the amount available to trade and credit suppliers, but also to other suppliers, including people with unpaid wages. It is trying to get that complexity and balance right.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talks about hospitality and support for other sectors. Clearly, the high street is an ecosystem—it is not only about shops and retail. We need to make sure that we do as much as we can to continue to wrap our arms around the economy at this particularly challenging time. As he acknowledges, there is light at the end of the tunnel, but we must not take our foot off the gas. We must remain alert, in terms of our own behaviours, as community members going up and down the high street, shopping local where we can to support retailers as they remain open, but also as a Government, making sure that we support the retail and hospitality sectors through both the support that I mentioned but also through encouraging them to be able to trade and remain open in all three tiers as best we can.

Suzanne Webb: I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with employees of Debenhams and Arcadia, who face huge uncertainty this week, particularly in the run-up to Christmas. These are long-standing bastions of the high street. However, both organisations have been struggling for quite some time; indeed, Debenhams has been in administration since January. While no redundancies have yet been announced, many of my constituents will be affected. Can my hon. Friend assure me that, if the worst were to happen, the Government are ready to support anyone affected, whether through jobcentres or universal credit?

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know her constituents will be concerned about this. We are prepared to step up concentration within Jobcentre  Plus. We will make sure there is support for people in finding jobs and for retaining as many jobs as possible on our high streets.

Drew Hendry: I am sure the Minister agrees that there is a great deal of public affection for the Arcadia brands and in particular for Debenhams. While we must hope that redundancies can be avoided wherever possible, this is a sad day for our embattled high streets. All our thoughts are with the thousands of workers, including those in my constituency, many of whom have given years, or even decades, of service in retail, who will be devastated by this news. They must be given all the help they can get to ensure that all their pension rights are retained. Will the Minister ensure that Sir Philip Green’s obligations to pensions are met, and will his Department work with trade unions to make sure that the workers are treated fairly and adequately supported through the process?
Like others, many of the workers will face difficulty in putting food on the table and finding a new job or retraining in a crowded market. They will need the safety net of universal credit to make ends meet. I urge the Minister to use his best efforts and to work with colleagues to retain the £20 a week uplift and to scrap the planned benefit cap that will cost an average of £250 a month. Universal credit is already not enough; taking away the uplift is taking food from people’s tables.
We need to remember that many small businesses in local supply chains will be affected by the news. Some of them will not survive without support, while the owners of others will be joining the 3 million people who have been excluded from support. The Government cannot continue to ignore them. I urge the Minister again to finally get support to this group, who are becoming increasingly desperate.

Paul Scully: The existing commitments made to the Pensions Regulator do indeed need to be kept—it is important to say that.
The hon. Gentleman talks about support for employees. If people need financial support quickly, they may be able to claim universal credit and/or employment and support allowance. Our plan for jobs includes a series of measures to protect, support and create jobs, because it is important to get the people affected back into work as soon as possible. We have our £238 million job entry targeted support programme to support that.
The hon. Gentleman also talks about the possibility of suppliers losing out. Administrators will take over the company and seek to establish the position regarding suppliers. The trade credit reinsurance scheme is designed to support businesses coping with the economic impacts of covid-19 and to ensure that there is adequate confidence and credit in supply chains.

Nickie Aiken: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Arcadia Group is headquartered in my constituency and its brands, including Debenhams and Topshop, have their flagship stores on Oxford Street. Covid has the potential to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for bricks-and-mortar retailers. The New West End Company and I welcome the continuing support of my hon. Friend  and his Department for the retail sector. I note the Government’s announcement this week on extending shopping trading hours for Monday to Saturday until January but, particularly in the short term, an extension of Sunday trading hours would be of huge benefit to retailers. Will my hon. Friend support me, The Sun on Sunday newspaper, retailers such as Marks & Spencer and others who are campaigning to extend Sunday trading?

Paul Scully: I look forward to joining the New West End Company and, I assume, my hon. Friend on Saturday to celebrate not only Small Business Saturday but traffic-free shopping in the west end. The west end accounts for 3% of the entire UK economy and many, many jobs. We do not propose to extend Sunday trading at this stage, but we are extending shopping hours throughout the weekdays. We want to work with local authorities to make sure that they can support the safe return of shoppers to high streets up and down the country, including in the west end.

Darren Jones: The collapse of Arcadia and Debenhams are two big examples of the broader challenge of survival in the high street-based retail sector. Every job lost and every store closed is devastating for families and communities across the entire country. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has today written to the Secretary of State, and I know we will have full answers in due course, but may I ask the Minister one specific question about support for small businesses in the retail supply chain? I wish to push him a bit further on whether there will be specific support—perhaps a taskforce—for small retail businesses, to help with the hundreds of millions of pounds of orders that could go unpaid.

Paul Scully: I cannot give specifics on a taskforce or any other group, but we will look acutely at what we can do for supply chains and the future of the high street. When flagship stores like the 200-odd-year-old Debenhams leave our high streets, it is so important to make sure that we have a co-ordinated response. I will happily work with the hon. Gentleman on that.

Caroline Nokes: My hon. Friend, and the whole House, is concerned about the numbers of jobs potentially lost in the Arcadia Group, but we also have to be concerned about those employed by microbusinesses, perhaps without premises, who have so far not benefited from Government schemes to support them. Will he think again about those who so far have not had Government support and may well be adversely impacted by the news we have heard about Arcadia if they work in the retail supply chain?

Paul Scully: My right hon. Friend raises a really important point. We have wrapped our arms around the economy, but clearly it is very difficult to do things at pace to cover everybody. We will always make sure that we reflect on what happens, to help as many people as we can and try to fill the cracks as best we can.

Sarah Olney: I, too, express my sympathies to all those employees of Debenhams and the Arcadia Group who find themselves out of  work so close to Christmas and in such an uncertain time. Will the Minister’s Department work with local authorities to support them to offer more flexible rates terms to new businesses that want to come in and set up in the large voids that a lot of town centres will be experiencing in their retail spaces? Those voids affect town centres and communities. What can the Department do to work with local authorities to lower the barriers to new entrants into the retail sector?

Paul Scully: There are plenty of things on which we can work together with the sector and, indeed, the whole gamut of British high street businesses, including by talking about getting the rent balance right between landlords and tenants, as well as rates, as the hon. Lady says. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury is joining me on tomorrow’s Retail Sector Council call that I mentioned, to talk about the fundamental business rates review. I hope we will be able to work with local authorities to get that flexibility.

Marco Longhi: Does my hon. Friend agree that Dudley Council and other local leaders in my constituency will play an instrumental role in rebuilding and revitalising the high street? Will he confirm that the high streets taskforce will stand ready to provide whatever advice may be needed in this endeavour?

Paul Scully: I know that my hon. Friend works tirelessly for his constituency and local economy. It is so important that we get together to look at the high street, because many of these conversations were about what the high street will look like in 10 or 15 years’ time, but now they are about what the high street will look like next year and maybe only the year after. We have to get a speedy but holistic response.

Clive Betts: The business rate relief for retailers this year has been welcome, but it was obviously not sufficient for Debenhams and Arcadia and all their employees, who will tragically lose their jobs just before Christmas. There is a fundamental unfairness in the fact that Amazon pays only 0.7% of its turnover in business rates and high street retailers pay 2% or more. Last year, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee suggested that the Government look at bringing in a digital sales tax and use the money to provide long-term business rate relief for retailers on the high street. Given that the Government promised to look at business rate reform in 2015, will they now get on with it and give that certainty of reduced business rates to the high street as a matter of urgency?

Paul Scully: That is an important question, and it is exactly why we are doing fundamental business rates reform. The first stage of the consultation has ended, and we will respond in the new year, but we need to have a comprehensive approach to tackle this both online and offline.

Greg Smith: The Risborough basket is an innovative scheme founded by Princes Risborough Town Council in my constituency, with a mission to keep the pound in the town, enabling local shoppers to buy from small independent retailers and have their purchases personally delivered. It is a real boost to those high street businesses, but in setting up  the scheme, they have come across a number of regulatory burdens. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating everyone who set up the Risborough basket and commit to working with them, so that we can get rid of those regulatory burdens and ensure that such schemes can help high streets up and down the land?

Paul Scully: The Risborough basket is one of those brutally simple schemes that are from the grassroots up. It is fantastic to hear about that innovation, and I would love to see what we can do to spread it across the country, never mind working with the council to get rid of some of the burdens in bureaucracy and regulation to help it prosper.

Barry Sheerman: Mr Speaker, thank you so much for the opportunity to ask this young Minister to take a message back to No. 10 and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As someone who worked in retail as a young man, and as a Co-op Member of Parliament, I know about retail. We have a workforce facing redundancy and hardship at Christmas. What we want from this Government is a strategy and leadership, not crocodile tears. A fifth of young people have lost their jobs. With 20,000 jobs, the kickstart programme has hardly touched young people’s lives. Will he get on with it and take that message back to No. 10?

Paul Scully: The hon. Gentleman talks about me being young, which he can do many times over, but as he says, retail is largely staffed by young people and those on comparatively low pay, so there is so much we can do. The strategy comes not just from Government but from working with the sector. The Retail Sector Council can take a long-term view, but we can also work with retailers on the short-term covid response. This is something for all of us to tackle.

Laura Farris: Not many of my constituents will shed a tear for Philip Green, but we should be profoundly concerned about the 25,000 jobs at risk of redundancy. The high street has been under unprecedented pressure. I welcome the remarks that my hon. Friend made about the business rates review, but will he commit this afternoon to an extension of another six to 12 months in which rates are either reduced or reprieved, to give the high street the best chance of recovery?

Paul Scully: I know that those in the Treasury will have listened to that, and they are very aware, particularly in relation to retail and hospitality, of the cliff edge that comes when business rates are due to return at the end of April. We will certainly look at that, and an announcement will be forthcoming.

Chris Matheson: In 1791, Susannah Towsey, a draper and haberdasher, moved to more commodious premises on Eastgate Street in Chester. She became Susannah Brown, and Browns of Chester still trades today at the retail heart of Chester, as part of Debenhams. As with other retail premises, it has been undermined by dodgy sale and leaseback property deals led by private equity firms, which has not helped the situation. Browns is one of Debenhams’s stores that trades well, at a profit. Will the Minister speak to  administrators and support them, so that where there is potential for shops to continue as a going concern, that is explored and supported?

Paul Scully: I agree that it is so important that we continue a viable businesswhere it is possible, and I know that the administrators will have that at heart.

Simon Fell: The news about Debenhams and Arcadia will cause many concerns as we head into Christmas. Can my hon. Friend reiterate the support that the Government will make available to the employees who face an uncertain future? Further to that, this year alone in Barrow, we have lost M&S and Topshop, so Debenhams will be another heavy blow. What support will the Government provide to offer hope to the high street in future?

Paul Scully: In terms of employees, as well as universal credit and access to other support through Jobcentre Plus, we will connect people to jobs in the labour market, help with their employment skills, such as CV writing, interview skills and so on, and identify transferable skills. It is, though, so important that we do more than that for our high streets to create the opportunities for those people to take up, through the future high streets fund and the work that we are doing with the Retail Sector Council and others at every level of government.

Chris Elmore: The Minister will be aware that a third of all retail jobs are held by people under the age of 25, and that a huge number of retail workers are women, because it allows flexible working and part-time hours. He will also be aware that many jobs in retail are highly skilled. It is a complete misconception that working in retail is not skilled and that, in years gone by, it was not a job or a profession for life. What specific support will the Minister put in place to offer to young people and to women, who will be more disproportionately affected by this and who have also been more disproportionately affected by the covid pandemic, to ensure that we do not have a lost generation of young people when it comes to finding their first job?

Paul Scully: Essentially, it is about creating those jobs and opportunities on the high street to ensure that we can keep retail and expand the offering on our high streets. Clearly, though, we need to ensure that we have that skills transfer work at jobcentre level and elsewhere to encourage our young people to take up those opportunities.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before we go to Bob Blackman, let me try to help, because I know how important it is to everybody to get on with the Order Paper, by saying that we need to speed up the answers and speed up the questions. I do not want to miss out people, but we may have to if we do not speed up. I am sure that Bob Blackman will provide us with a good example of speed.

Bob Blackman: Debenhams in Harrow town centre is an anchor store to the town centre. When Debenhams went into administration, 20 stores across its network were due to close. Fortunately, Harrow was not one of them. However, this has a long-term effect on the entirety of Harrow town centre, so will my hon. Friend—[Inaudible.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Minister, can you pick out the best of that?

Paul Scully: I think my hon. Friend was talking about anchor stores and the effect on the high street. I know him very well, so I can predict his question. Yes, if we take out an anchor store, we hollow out a high street, so it is so important that we look at this holistically, work together with local government, national Government and with retailers themselves to build up our high streets and shape them anew.

Justin Madders: Ellesmere Port, like many places, has seen an exodus from the high street over the past decade, which has been accelerated in the past year. Of course, it is no coincidence that, at the same time, online retail is booming, but my constituents do not judge the vibrancy of an area by the number of delivery drivers up their street; they judge it by the number of boarded-up shops in their town centres. Therefore, we need a consistent funded plan for the high street, but, just as importantly, we need a level playing field so that high street shops have a chance of competing. Can the Minister assure us that we will get that?

Paul Scully: Indeed, high streets will certainly change, but we need to get the balance right between online and bricks and mortar as well, because both have a really important position to play in our retail offering.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In just three towns in my constituency, 27 shops have either closed or are about to close because of the pandemic. Will my hon. Friend commit today to use the Government’s very generous package of measures to retail businesses at all levels of Government—from central Government to local government to local enterprise partnerships—to follow the Prime Minister’s lead to encourage a massive return to the high streets now that we are allowed to do so under the guidance?

Paul Scully: It is really important that, as we extend hours for retailers to be able to open up for Christmas, we rip up and peel back on our bureaucracy as well. We must also encourage local authorities to do more such as offering free parking and other such things.

Gregory Campbell: The high street is facing utter devastation in the next few months, unless drastic action is taken. Will the Minister undertake, in conjunction with the Treasury, to discuss a proposal that I put to the Chancellor three months ago? The banks and building societies are currently sitting on almost £200 billion in current accounts and deposit accounts, paying 0% interest. A 1% voucher would release £2 billion to be spent on the high street only, at no cost to the taxpayer, and would bring a benefit equivalent to that which was seen in Jersey in the summer and which hopefully will be seen in Northern Ireland next month, as a similar voucher scheme is going to be discussed and released there.

Paul Scully: It is certainly something that I will ask the Treasury to look at and discuss with me.

Elliot Colburn: As my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend will be aware that many Carshalton and Wallington residents   work in Debenhams and Arcadia stores, particularly the flagship store at the St Nicholas Centre in Sutton. Will he join me in meeting the affected workers should the worst happen at that flagship store in Sutton, and reassure them that the Government are doing all they can to support them?

Paul Scully: Indeed. As well as being a Minister, I am clearly a constituency MP, and Debenhams is also at the heart of my high street. I will certainly continue to meet constituents affected by this and other issues around the high street.

Julie Marson: The Government’s support for business has been unprecedented and unparalleled, particularly in the retail sector. The Minister is right to call it an ecosystem, because it does have a far-reaching effect on the economy. Does he agree that we have seen incredible creativity and resilience in our local communities and on our high streets, including from residents and retailers in Hertford, who have formed the Hertford hub and the Bishop’s Stortford business improvement district; and that, while we should look at business rates and so on, it is working with and supporting those communities that will let the sector create, thrive and survive?

Paul Scully: It is so much about a “grassroots up” approach. It is great to hear about the Hertford hub and the Bishop’s Stortford BID. There are some brilliant examples of BIDs and initiatives; I would like to hear more.

Marion Fellows: Retail trade union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, has said that it is seeking urgent meetings with Arcadia’s administrators in a bid to preserve jobs. It is crucial that the voice of staff is heard over the future of business in all circumstances. What reassurance can the Minister give that this request will be met?

Paul Scully: Clearly, the administrators will do their work under their own purview, but I encourage them to ensure that they look at the whole issue to keep as many viable jobs going and as many viable parts of the business going as possible, so as not to hollow out our high streets.

Gerald Jones: This is an awful situation for every high street and retail park across the country, and even more so for the 25,000 people at Arcadia and Debenhams who are at risk of losing their jobs just before Christmas. In outlining what action the Government are taking to support the people affected, will the Minister specifically highlight any discussions that the Government are having with the Welsh Government, so that any support packages from both Governments can be co-ordinated?

Paul Scully: Given that these businesses are big brand names, this is clearly an issue for the whole UK. We will continue to work with and listen to the devolved Administrations, and to speak to them about what support we can look at across the UK as a whole.

Darren Henry: Hospitality businesses are a vital part of our high streets. Winter is the time that these businesses, like many others, make their plans for the next season. They are currently planning in the  dark, having been singled out for restrictions and excluded from the Christmas bubble proposals. Therefore, many will have no option but to make some very difficult decisions this Christmas. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to consider a longer-term recovery for this vital component of the high street, and that there is a case to make the 5% VAT rate more permanent—extending it to the end of the financial year—which might help to address the issues of rent, debt and an uncertain cash flow going into 2021?

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend is working hard for his hospitality sector offering in Broxtowe. I will be leaving this place to speak to hospitality sector representatives immediately after this urgent question, and they will have a number of those asks. I look at this sympathetically because, as I have said, the high street is an ecosystem; we must all work together to support the business community as a whole.

Andrew Gwynne: It is a very worrying time for those employed by Debenhams and Arcadia stores in Denton, Stockport and Manchester, and indeed right across the country. Greater Manchester’s independent prosperity review identified structural changes in the retail sector due to the rise of e-commerce, and sadly we are seeing a rapid acceleration in these changes due to the pandemic. What are the Government doing to put in place a strategic plan for the sector, including retraining and reskilling into digital roles in the sector and in adjacent industries?

Paul Scully: We are working with the retail sector itself, including online businesses like Amazon and Asos, and bricks and mortar businesses providing the retail brands that we all know and love, to make sure that we can get the whole gamut of retail together as one and look at the long-term prospects, including digitisation and increasing the skills of retailers and those wanting to go into the sector.

Mike Wood: Workers at Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins, Evans, Miss Selfridge, Burton, Top Man and Top Shop in Dudley South face a really worrying time, but the challenges facing retail go much wider. Can my hon. Friend therefore confirm that the £1 billion future high streets fund will be accelerated, and will he join me on a visit to Brierley Hill so that he can see for himself how much our bid will transform the town centre and help to support retail jobs in my constituency?

Paul Scully: Owing to the restrictions it is nice to be offered a trip anywhere, so I will be more than happy to take that up. Yes indeed—the future high streets fund is a really important initiative along the way of tackling the issues in retail and our high streets as a whole. I wish my hon. Friend well in his bid. The results will be announced shortly.

Kate Hollern: There is a Debenhams in my constituency and my thoughts are with the staff at this time, but sadly it is not the only business going to the wall. Yesterday I spoke to Barry, who runs the Bee Hive pub in Blackburn, and he described the Prime Minister’s announcement of £1,000 for pubs as a slap in the face. Barry has spent thousands on making sure that his pub was covid-secure, and with no  evidence of spread of the virus in the pub sector, he will now have to throw away thousands more in stock. He is now wondering whether he can survive. So I ask the Minister: did he pluck the figure out of the air, and does his Department think that £1,000 will really be able to save our pubs and, in turn, our high streets?

Paul Scully: Wet-led pubs have a particular issue where they are not offering food, and £1,000 does not go far enough in itself, but it does go alongside the other payments such as the forbearance on rent, the moratorium that is still in place until the end of the year, business rates relief, and VAT relief on certain areas of food—although not necessarily in that pub. I will continue to work with the hospitality sector. It is important to say, as the hon. Lady said, that those in hospitality should not be scapegoated, because they have done so much work to make sure that they can offer a covid 19-secure and warm welcome to their customers.

Angela Richardson: Guildford High Street is not only picturesque but is home to one of the finest retail offerings in the south-east, including Debenhams and Arcadia brands. We acknowledge not only the difficult uncertainty for employees today but the significant square footage that these businesses occupy and the gaps that they will leave behind. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must actively work to help the high street to recover from coronavirus and also adapt to the long-term changes that will make our town centres sustainable for the future?

Paul Scully: I know Guildford very well. It is a destination for residents around Surrey and further afield. Yes, we must all work together to get the balance right so that we do not hollow out our town centres, including Guildford.

Charlotte Nichols: The Debenhams liquidation is a tragedy not only for the thousands of Debenhams employees but for all retailers in shopping centres like Warrington’s Golden Square, where Debenhams is the anchor department store driving footfall for the whole centre. With Arcadia brand stores in Golden Square also at risk, and confidence in the wider retail sector waning, what specific support will shopping centres like Golden Square get to protect all its retailers, their employees, and the vibrancy of our town centres?

Paul Scully: In terms of shopping centres it is really important that we get the balance right between landlords and tenants. The moratorium helps tenants but clearly does not help landlords, so we have to get the balance right. We will work with the retail sector to try to achieve that balance in the weeks and months to come.

Aaron Bell: The Dorothy Perkins in Newcastle-under-Lyme was already closed earlier during the pandemic, and we have also lost major tenants such as Laura Ashley and Edinburgh Woollen Mill during this pandemic, so I welcome what we are doing with the future high streets fund. We have a bid in with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Can the Minister confirm that it will be accelerated? We need to hear about that bid as soon as we can so we can get our towns fund bid in as well.

Paul Scully: I wish my hon. Friend every success in that bid—the announcement will be forthcoming. It is important that we have small business Saturday coming up this Saturday, and we must make sure independent stores thrive. However, the brands he talks about that are going do drag footfall towards those smaller businesses, which is why we need to look at the high street as a whole.

Hywel Williams: Debenhams is a cornerstone employer in Bangor city centre. Its closure will be a severe blow to the staff who have worked there loyally for many years, and even more so now, I am afraid, because North Wales Mersey Dee Business Council reports that, across the region, 17% of businesses in retail and hospitality have already made redundancies. Thinking creatively, what consideration has the Minister given to material Government support specifically for repurposing large retail spaces into smaller, short-term, start-up units?

Paul Scully: We always work with local authorities to see what initiatives can come up. We work closely with them because it is typically the local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and other business groupings in each local area that know their local economy, and we are always happy to look at any initiatives.

Peter Gibson: As a student, I worked for the then Burton Group, and I know how vital retail jobs are, especially for students and young people. Can my hon. Friend confirm for my constituents in Darlington who worked at Topshop, Burton and Dorothy Perkins the steps he is taking to provide support, advice and assistance to them?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend, and I commend his work in retail before; many others around the House have done such work. Yes, as well as offering them support through universal credit and other benefits, we will work with them through the Jobcentre Plus and its frontline workers to help them with CV writing, creating opportunities for and sharing opportunities with them, and ensuring that transferable skills have a massive role to play in that.

Alex Norris: Up and down high streets in Nottingham, businesses big and small are really worried about their viability in the early parts of next year. They look at us talking about Debenhams and Arcadia today, and they think we will be back in January, February and March talking about them unless something changes. I ask the Minister the same question they are asking me: beyond reviews and promises of reform in the future, what support is coming now to keep our high streets viable?

Paul Scully: We are keeping our high streets viable by giving people business rates relief and giving businesses a moratorium to make sure they cannot be evicted and cannot be chased for rent debts, but, most importantly, by keeping retail open in all three tiers so that they can actually trade their way out of this. What they want is not handouts, ideally, although they do need the support; they want customers. They want customers for long- term support.

Kieran Mullan: But our high streets need all the help that they can get, and the towns of Crewe and Nantwich are facing the highest   parking charges in the region, while other towns in the area face none. Would the Minister agree that the local authority should at least ensure there is a level playing field, and perhaps reconsider its decision to reject some initiatives for December to introduce free parking to encourage people back on to the high street?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. When people are bringing back their heavy bags—after a long evening’s shopping, hopefully, in the lead-up to Christmas—just a simple token like free parking or cheaper parking can really help drive footfall and support our local high streets.

Clive Efford: Debenhams workers have expressed concern about the performance of the administrators. There has been a lack of communication and delays in registering redundancies with the redundancy payments service, which in turn has led to delayed payments to the workers themselves. What can the Minister do to ensure that the rights of workers are protected in these situations?

Paul Scully: Clearly, as I have said, there are measures in place that govern the administrators, but we will keep on top of this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already written to the administrators to expedite the report. We will also follow up to make sure we keep an eye on them to support workers not only through the administrators and redundancy phase, but back into good work.

Gagan Mohindra: As my hon. Friend will know, I was a furniture retailer for many years prior to arriving in this place. This year has been hugely challenging for our high streets, and my thoughts are first and foremost with the employees of Arcadia and Debenhams. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Government must continue to actively work to help high streets both recover from coronavirus and, more importantly, adapt to the more long-term challenges that our town centres are facing at the moment?

Paul Scully: I know that my hon. Friend’s experience as a retailer, and his other work, will be massive in the months to come. Yes, we must ensure that we shape the change of high streets. We must allow businesses to pivot to allow for that change, so that our high streets can survive and thrive.

Christine Jardine: Like many others, I am concerned about the many workers across Edinburgh and in my constituency who will today be worried about their jobs with Arcadia. My constituency also contains a number of independent shops that are struggling and need a level playing field with the online behemoths of this world, such as Amazon. I have a suggestion and plan to offer postage support for those independent businesses, in the same way as the Government helped the hospitality sector. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me to discuss that?

Paul Scully: I will happily meet the hon. Lady. She mentioned independent retailers, and it is important to realise that big anchor stores have a massive effect on smaller businesses if they hollow out the high streets. It is important to look at both sectors alike.

Matt Vickers: I too earned my spurs in retail at Woolworths and Home Bargains. This year has been incredibly challenging for high street retailers, and my thoughts are with the employees of Arcadia and Debenhams. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must not only work actively to help high streets recover from the pandemic, but also consider all the other long-term issues they face, from car parking charges to businesses rates? I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on the future of retail, and we would very much like to see the Minister at its next meeting to discuss those issues.

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend—his experience will be valuable, and I would be happy to join him at the APPG. It is important not just to consider the immediacy of this, but the fact that with the new normal there is a new reality—a behaviour change that is baked into people’s approach to the high street. It is important to get right that long-term strategic view.

Alison Thewliss: I am deeply concerned by the situation facing Debenhams, which is a key part of Glasgow city centre, as well as the stores operated by Arcadia. My thoughts are with the staff, and I know that the Scottish Government stand ready with a pay scheme if it is required. Has the Minister established whether HMRC’s Crown preference rules, which came into force yesterday, had any bearing on the decision by Arcadia to go into administration on Monday? Has he calculated how much HMRC stands to lose as a result?

Paul Scully: I have not had any information or consideration of that issue as yet.

Nigel Mills: Does the Minster agree that the best way to save these businesses is for people to keep shopping at them? Can he assure people that their rights are protected if they buy vouchers, shop online, or want to return items after Christmas?

Paul Scully: That is a really important issue, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that these businesses want people to trade. At the moment, both Arcadia and Debenhams have said that they will accept vouchers, and I encourage anybody who is shopping at either store to use their credit card if they are spending more than £100, because then the Consumer Credit Act 1974 kicks in. At this moment, vouchers are accepted.

Fleur Anderson: Will the Minister accept that although Putney high street is very much loved and the centre of our local community, people are concerned about the fact that covid is accelerating the number of shops that are going? Will he consider a reform of the business rates, and of the meanwhile use rules, so that we can have more community activities in our shops on the high street?

Paul Scully: There is a really good community in Putney—I was there a few months ago at the business improvement district—and the more we can strip away through encouraging innovation through meanwhile use provisions, the better. I have spoken about the fundamental review of business rates, and it is important that we look at the whole thing.

Robert Halfon: In Harlow, we have an excellent Topshop that has done very well, and clearly the staff are worried about their pensions and their jobs. Surely, the time has come for legislation to stop these robber barons who own these big companies, who plunder the assets, with the taxpayer left to foot the bill and anxious employees losing their jobs and pensions. We should make sure that we seize the assets of those big vulture capitalists and get the money that the hard-working employees deserve.

Paul Scully: My right hon. Friend raises some important points. There is already legislation and regulation in place to look at this. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the administrators to make sure that they can expedite the report looking at directors’ behaviour, not just in the immediate weeks but looking back to see if anything untoward has happened.

Ian Byrne: The job losses resulting from what is happening at Arcadia and Debenhams are on top of a series of devastating job losses across the north-west. Vacancies are scarce and people have few places left to turn. In Liverpool, West Derby, we have had increases of over 100% in both youth unemployment and universal credit claimants since March. Will the Government now commit to cancelling their heartless plan to cut universal credit, which will take £20 a week from struggling families in my constituency?

Paul Scully: To flip the question slightly, I know that a number of people up and down the country have been appreciative of the Government’s increase in universal credit to make sure that we can help them through this particularly acute time. Clearly, as I say, we will continue to work not only to support people who are out of a job but to make sure that we can create jobs and opportunities for them to get back into good work.

Theresa Villiers: Retail is at the heart of our local high streets, and the Government’s huge programme of support has been vital in keeping it going. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging my constituents to back Barnet and to come out and shop local on small business Saturday?

Paul Scully: My right hon. Friend absolutely nails it, as usual, in supporting her independent retailers—her small businesses. They are the backbone; 99.7% of businesses in this country are small and medium-sized enterprises. She is absolutely right, and I encourage everybody, both in Barnet and across the country, to shop local and get out there and spend money where possible to make sure that there is a high street to enjoy for years to come.

Tan Dhesi: Arcadia entering administration and Debenhams going into liquidation is devastating news, with thousands facing the risk of losing their jobs, but this is also an issue of greed, with Philip Green having paid his family a tax-free dividend almost three and a half times more than Arcadia’s current pension pot deficit. Does the Minister agree that while Philip Green retains his fortune, employees should not end up paying the price with their pensions?

Paul Scully: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Clearly, as I say, the Pensions Regulator has significant powers here, and we will make sure that it has the space and ability to do its job.

Mark Jenkinson: My heart goes out to all those affected by the collapse of Arcadia and Debenhams, both of which affect my Workington constituency—particularly Workington town centre, which has a Debenhams anchor. Alongside the stronger towns fund, the Government’s future high streets fund will be crucial to helping town centres not only recover but adapt in the future. In the light of unprecedented challenges this year, can my hon. Friend confirm that future high streets fund decisions are imminent and that the Government will get the cash out of the door quickly so that it can have a positive impact as soon as possible?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for his work to support Workington. The stronger towns fund and the future high streets fund are two really important instruments in making sure that we have high streets up and down the country that can survive and thrive and that we can be proud of, and we will make sure that those announcements are forthcoming as soon as possible.

Stephen Flynn: As Arcadia collapses and jobs are put on the line in Aberdeen and across the country, Amazon pays less than £300 million of tax on almost £14 billion of revenue. Does the Minister therefore agree that, in order to protect our city centres, we need a level playing field and the Government must toughen up their digital services tax?

Paul Scully: This is an important situation. Our hearts must all go out, as they have done today, to the employees of both Arcadia and Debenhams. In terms of an online sales tax, that is something we will look at in the fundamental business rates review. It is important that our high streets survive. There is an understanding that online businesses have an important role to play, but they must pay their fair share of taxes.

Mark Pawsey: The challenges that Arcadia and Debenhams face existed before covid, but they have been accelerated by it as people move online. The Minister outlined the very substantial support the Government are providing to retailers, but, to follow the question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), should the Government go further and consider levelling the playing field between bricks and mortar and online retailers through an online sales tax?

Paul Scully: An online sales tax is one consideration that the Treasury will look at, but it is more than that. We need to ensure, in the fundamental business rates review, that there is a connection between businesses, bricks and mortar retailers, and their place, rather than just the customers themselves. There is an important body of work to be done and I know the Treasury will have heard the comments and views today.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Coronavirus Vaccine

Matthew Hancock: With permission, I would like to make a statement about the coronavirus vaccine.
Today marks a new chapter in our fight against this virus. Ever since the pandemic hit our shores almost a year ago, we have known that a vaccine would be critical to set us free. So all through this arduous year—it has been an arduous year—while we have been working night and day to fight the virus and keep it under control, we have been striving, too, to develop the vaccines that can give us hope and let us eventually release the curbs on our freedoms that have bound us for so long.
Thanks to the incredible work of the Vaccine Taskforce, the Business Secretary and Kate Bingham, we have already amassed a huge portfolio of different vaccine candidates. We have backed seven vaccines and ordered 357 million doses on behalf of the whole UK, one of the biggest portfolios per capita in the world. We have said from the start that a vaccine must be safe and effective before we would even consider deploying it. Any vaccine must go through a rigorous process of clinical trials, involving thousands of people and extensive independent scrutiny from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, one of the world’s most respected medical regulators.
Today, I am delighted to inform the House that the MHRA has issued the clinical authorisation of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. This is a monumental step forward. It is no longer “if” there is going to be a vaccine, but “when”. In our battle against the virus, help is on its way. Today is a triumph for all those who believe in science, a triumph for ingenuity and a triumph for humanity, and I thank everyone who has played their part in this achievement. I thank the team at Pfizer, the team of scientists at BioNTech, the volunteers who stepped up and took part in clinical trials, and the MHRA itself, which made sure that this is a vaccine we can all have faith in. Thanks to their efforts, I can confirm that the UK is the first country in the world to have a clinically approved coronavirus vaccine for supply, and now our task is to make use of the fruits of that scientific endeavour to save lives.
We have spent months preparing for this day, so that as soon as we got the green light, we would be ready to go. We were the first country in the world to pre-order supplies of this successful vaccine, and we have 40 million doses pre-ordered for delivery over the coming months—enough for 20 million people, because two jabs are required for each person. Following authorisation, the next stage is to test each batch of the vaccine for safety. I can confirm that batch testing has been completed this morning for the first deployment of 800,000 doses of vaccine. Those doses are for the whole United Kingdom. This morning, I chaired a meeting of Health Ministers from the devolved Administrations to ensure the roll-out is co-ordinated nationwide.
This will be one of the biggest civilian logistical efforts that we have faced as a nation. It will be difficult. There will be challenges and complications, but I know that the NHS is equal to the task. Rolling out the vaccine, free at the point of delivery and according to clinical need, not ability to pay, is in the finest tradition  of our national health service, and I am delighted to confirm that the NHS will be able to start vaccinating from early next week.
The whole purpose of the vaccine is to protect people from covid, so that we can get lives back to normal. We will prioritise the groups who are at greatest risk. This morning, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has published its advice, setting out the order of priority according to clinical need, and that includes care home residents and their carers, the over-80s and frontline health and social care workers. We will deliver according to clinical prioritisation and operational necessity. The need to hold the vaccine at -70˚C makes it particularly challenging to deploy.
While we begin vaccination next week, the bulk of the vaccinations will be in the new year. I urge anyone called forward for vaccination by the NHS to respond quickly to protect themselves, their loved ones and their community.
Over the next few months, we will see vaccines delivered in three different ways. First, we will begin vaccinations in hospital hubs. Secondly, we will deploy through local community services, including GPs and in due course pharmacies, too. Thirdly, we will stand up vaccination centres in conference centres and sports venues, for example, to vaccinate large numbers of people as more vaccines come on stream. This is an important step, but we are not there yet, so I stress that we must all keep playing our part, keep following the new rules that the House approved overwhelmingly yesterday and remember the basics, such as “Hands, face space”, and, “Get a test”, which we know from experience are so important in keeping the virus under control.
Before I finish, may I also update the House on another bit of good news? From today, I am absolutely thrilled to say that we can safely allow visits in care homes for those who test negative for covid-19. Coronavirus has denied so many people the simple pleasure of seeing a loved one, which is so precious to so many, especially in our care homes. This is possible only because of the success we have had in building one of the biggest testing capacities in Europe, with local and national teams working together, side by side—something we have often discussed right across this House. We have worked hard on testing. We have worked hard on the vaccine. Our strategy is suppressing the virus until a vaccine can make us safe. That strategy is working, and I am delighted that we will be able to see families and friends come together ahead of Christmas, thanks to this improvement.
This is a day to remember, frankly in a year to forget. We can see the way out of this but we are not there yet, so let us keep our resolve and keep doing our bit to keep people safe until science can make us free.

Jon Ashworth: As always, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This is indeed fantastic news about the Pfizer vaccine, and I join him in congratulating all who have been involved in making this happen. We have rightly clapped carers throughout this crisis. I wonder if we should as a nation come together and applaud our scientists as well one evening. It is also incumbent on all of us across the House to reinforce the case that vaccination saves lives, and if it helps, I will  stand alongside the Secretary State, socially distanced of course, on any platform or in any TV studio to show that we are united cross-party in promoting vaccination.
Our constituents will have legitimate questions and they should not be ridiculed for asking them, so will the Secretary of State launch a large-scale public information campaign to answer questions and encourage uptake? Will he consider sending a pamphlet, perhaps, to every household? We know that dangerous myths circulate on social media, and we repeat our offer to work with Ministers to curb online harms. I hope we can work together and take something forward on that front.
Hospital trust staff will start receiving this vaccine first. I understand that it is a massive logistical exercise, given the temperatures and the need for two doses, but could the Secretary of State tell us how many NHS staff he expects to be vaccinated by January, which is of course the time when we expect the NHS to be under the most pressure?
Where does this leave social care and care home residents and staff? There are concerns that this particular vaccine cannot be moved multiple times to care homes, so can he set out exactly how and when care home residents will receive a vaccine? Our constituents will want to know: when will primary care networks start rolling out vaccination, and when will the mass vaccination centres he has reported to the House start opening in our communities?
We have historic strengths as a country with vaccination, but in recent years we have lost our measles-free status. We know that vaccination rates can be lower in poorer and vulnerable communities and that covid has often had a disproportionate impact in these communities, so will he ensure that there is a health inequalities strategy as well in his vaccination campaign, so that black and minority ethnic groups, and the poorest and the vulnerable, do not miss out on this vaccine?
I think we all understand that restrictions will have to remain in place for some time, but can the Secretary of State offer us a timeframe or a target for when we should expect to achieve herd immunity and life gets back to normal? Will he consider publishing a route map of what restrictions could be released as vaccination rates increase? In the meantime, if someone is vaccinated, will they still have to isolate if contacted by Test and Trace, or are they now released from that obligation?
On mass testing, some directors of public health have told me that the lateral flow tests are not licensed for door-to-door testing in hotspots and therefore can only be administered at sites. If that is correct, can the Secretary of State resolve it? If is not correct, can he issue urgent clarity to directors of public health? The Government’s document published on Monday suggests that local areas could use mass testing as a freedom pass. Will he outline to the House what that means in practice? Will local areas enforce rules? What happens if some people have had the test but some have not had the test in a particular area that is supposed to be under tier 3? In the House yesterday, the Prime Minister suggested that people may want to take advantage of mass testing ahead of visiting their families this Christmas. Will the Secretary of State update the House on whether that is the plan and how that will be implemented?
We of course welcome the Secretary of State’s news on care homes, but many care homes report that they will need resources to support the testing exercise. Will those resources be in place?
Finally, if mass testing is to work in communities, people will need support to isolate, if it is found that they have covid when they are not feeling unwell. Will the Secretary of State now expand the eligibility criteria for the £500 grant?
This is a good news day, and we should all pay tribute to everyone who was involved—we should pay tribute to the scientists. I will say again, we will work together to make the case that vaccinations save lives.

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman has worked supportively and constructively with the Government throughout this pandemic. I pay tribute to the approach that he has taken, and that he took again today.
I stand with the hon. Gentleman in saying that vaccinations save lives. If we can encourage anybody who might be hesitant to take a vaccine by appearing together to be vaccinated together, of course I would be happy to do that. I recommend that we have a professional vaccinate us, of course—I do not think that he would trust me to do it.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a public information campaign, and there will of course be one. He asked about health inequalities, which are a very important consideration. The best thing to support tackling health inequalities is the fact that we have a vaccine, but we absolutely need to reach all parts and all communities across the whole country.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many will be vaccinated by January. While today brings more certainty, it does not end all uncertainties. We have 800,000 doses that have now passed the batch testing, but the total number to be manufactured over this timeframe is not yet known, because it is all dependent on the manufacturing process, which is itself complicated. After all, this is not a chemical but a biological product, so I cannot answer that question—that is as yet unknowable.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the PCNs and the centres will open. The answer is very soon. We have 50 hospital hubs ready to go from next week. The PCNs are also being stood up, and the centres outside hospitals. They are all coming very soon.
The hon. Gentleman then asked when we will get to lift restrictions. Of course, I understand why not only he but almost everybody in the country wants to know the answer to this question: how many people do we have to vaccinate before we can start lifting the restrictions? The answer to that is that, while we know that the vaccine protects an individual with a 95% efficacy, we do not know the impact of the vaccine on reducing transmission, because of the problem of asymptomatic transmission, which has so bedevilled our response to this virus and made it so hard to tackle.
We do not know the answer to that question, but what we will do is to follow the same five indicators that we were discussing at length yesterday, which are the indicators of the spread of the disease. We will look at the cases, the hospitalisations and of course the number of people who die with covid, and we will hope very much that, as we vaccinate more and more vulnerable people, we will see those rates come down and therefore be able to lift the restrictions. We will have to see how  the vaccination programme impacts directly on the epidemic, and then move as swiftly as we safely can to lift the restrictions, which we all want to see gone.
The hon. Gentleman asked about community testing being licensed from door to door. I have not heard about that problem—I will ensure that I get back not only to him, but to those who raised it with him, if he will work with me. I am a bit surprised to hear that. Administering the lateral flow test currently requires a professional, although we hope to move on from that, but as far as I know it can take place in any setting, hence my surprise. However, as the comment was made by a public health professional, I shall dig into it further.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the testing prospectus we launched on Monday. We hope to be able to use testing to do more things that we would not be able to do without testing. In a way, visits to care homes are an example of that, as something we can now safely recommend that we could not recommend before; so too is testing to release from quarantine people coming into this country. If there are further examples of that sort of enablement of normal life through the use of testing that can be safely done and can be approved by a director of public health and by the chief medical officer and his team, we are enthusiastic about working with local areas to deliver it on the ground.
There are lots of ideas out there, and I urge people to be creative about how we can we can use testing to enable some of the things we love to get going again in a way that keeps people safe. That is what that part of the testing prospectus was about. I am very enthusiastic about it and look forward to working with directors of public health and with colleagues in this House. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that with the roll-out of mass testing and the availability of these tests, we all, as leaders in our local communities, have a role in promoting mass testing. I am sure that there are communities across the country represented in this House that can benefit from the roll-out.
Looking around the Chamber right now, I see many people who have already approached me—not just from Lancashire. I look forward to working with colleagues in all parts of the House to promote this public health message, along with all the other important public health messages we have to promote, not least that if the NHS phones you up or sends you a letter saying that there is a vaccination slot open to you, just say yes.

Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this moment and the Government on the news about the Pfizer vaccine, but please can we continue to have increased honesty about what we still do not know? We do not know how long the immunity will last, we do not even know whether people who have been vaccinated can still transmit the disease, and of course we do not know whether tier 2 restrictions will succeed in bringing the R rate down. Until we can answer those questions, we will continue to need maximum effort behind contact tracing and isolation of virus spreaders.
Councils including Essex County Council need daily access to all the positive cases recorded by NHS Test and Trace immediately and without delay, so that they can make their own operations effective, so why are they having to wait 48 to 72 hours before they get the data? Also, what are the Government going to do to engage  districts and their community volunteer hubs to help to persuade people to support those who must still isolate even if they have been vaccinated?

Matthew Hancock: Dealing with the pandemic has been a case of dealing with uncertainty in large degree. Today we have more certainty because we know this vaccine is safe and effective, but just as I said to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that we do not know the effect of the vaccine on transmission, so, as my hon. Friend says, we do not know the longevity of its effectiveness.
My hon. Friend is right about another part of public health advice that all of us as local representatives can play a part in promoting: that is, engagement with contact tracing. I will write to him about access to daily data in Essex. Of course we have to wait until the test result comes in, which can sometimes lead to delay, even though the results of the majority of tests done in person now come back within 24 hours, but I agree with him in principle, so let us make it a reality in practice.

Philippa Whitford: As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vaccinations for all, I welcome the authorisation of the Pfizer vaccine and echo the shadow Secretary of State’s call for a public health campaign to encourage uptake. It will naturally take some time before the vaccine is widely available, so we all still need to stick to the rules and ensure that we can test, trace, isolate and support all those carrying the virus.
Last week, the Secretary of State claimed that the pilot project of mass testing in Liverpool was responsible for driving down cases, despite the city having been under lockdown for much of the time. Lateral flow tests miss up to 40% of cases, so the Government’s plan to use them to free people from isolation are causing concern among many public health and screening experts. When will the formal assessment of the pilot be published, and how can he justify already putting out tenders for £40 billion-worth of contracts to extend that approach without scientific evaluation? Would it not be better to invest some of that money in getting the traditional test, trace and isolate system working properly? Six months on, the Serco and Sitel system has still not improved, and over 40% of contacts in England are still not being informed that they should be isolating.
The Secretary of State does not often talk about it, but he knows that it is not testing but isolation that stops the spread of the virus, so if people who are carrying the virus are not isolating, no amount of mass testing will stop the spread. When I raised the King’s College London report last week which found that less than 20% of cases and only 10% of contacts were isolating, the Secretary of State claimed that the Government have data showing much higher compliance. Can he tell us the figures for isolation rates for those with covid and their contacts? People will not stay off work if it means that they cannot feed their family, so is he concerned at reports that many requests for the isolation payment are being refused? How will he ensure that those carrying the virus are financially supported to isolate and reduce its spread?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady says that I do not talk about contact tracing very much. I was literally answering a question on contact tracing just before her question—  I talk of little else. We are publishing further data tomorrow on contact tracing, precisely in response to the question that she asks. She will see that the continued improvement of our contact tracing across the country is advancing further. I cannot say any more than that, because the figures are not being released until tomorrow.
The hon. Lady asked about scientific evaluation. We are constantly scientifically evaluating the work that is going on, especially in Liverpool. That is one of the things that the scientists who work as part of my team, in NHS Test and Trace and in Public Health England do. It is a matter of constant scientific evaluation, but we will not wait until ages after something has finished to do an overly long evaluation. We have to evaluate as we go along, because we are constantly trying to improve the response to this pandemic, and we are constantly trying to learn. I urge her to support the approach of constant learning and constant improvement. We will have to do that through the roll-out of the vaccine too.

Philippa Whitford: indicated dissent.

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is how we have to deal with a pandemic in practice.

Jeremy Hunt: This is a huge personal triumph for the Health Secretary, who has always backed the science. In choosing and backing on behalf of the country the first vaccine to prove efficacious, he has scored a massive goal for the country; he deserves great credit for that. It will also have global significance. I was in a meeting with the World Health Organisation this morning, which congratulated the UK on being the first country to approve a vaccine, because it will encourage other countries around the world to approve vaccines faster.
I want to ask the Health Secretary about something different, which is the plight of people with learning disabilities. He will know that Public Health England says that they are two to four times more likely to die from covid. The news he has given this morning about people in care homes is tremendously welcome, but people with learning disabilities often feel that they are forgotten, particularly those in supported accommodation. Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that they, too, are able to be reunited with their families ahead of Christmas?

Matthew Hancock: My right hon. Friend is gracious and kind in what he says, and I welcome the WHO’s comments this morning. It has supported the UK approach and rightly commended the MHRA, our independent regulator. It has followed all the same steps that any high-quality regulator would, should and will, but it has followed them rapidly and sometimes in parallel, instead of one after the other. That is how we have got to the position of being the first country in the world to have a vaccine that is clinically authorised; it is because the MHRA has done a brilliant job, working with Pfizer and BioNTech, to make sure that the same safety considerations are looked at but in a way that made the process as fast as is feasibly and safely possible. The WHO has backed that approach. Regulators around the world could take a look at the MHRA, and we should all congratulate it.
My right hon. Friend rightly asks about making sure we vaccinate those with learning disabilities and offer them vaccination at the right point in the prioritisation. I have discussed that important consideration directly with the JCVI, which takes into account the higher mortality of those with any given condition and has done so in the prioritisation that it set out this morning. Age is the single biggest determinant of mortality from coronavirus, which is why age is the predominant factor in the prioritisation, but it is not the only one. That matter has been considered by the JCVI and it is important that we accept and follow the JCVI advice as much as is practicable in the delivery and deployment of this vaccine.

Munira Wilson: It is, indeed, a fantastic day. I add my thanks and congratulations to everybody who has been involved in getting us to this point, not just in the UK, but worldwide, because this is a great example of global scientific collaboration. May I also pick up on the point about batch testing, which the Secretary of State mentioned on the radio this morning and in his statement? Will he clarify that if we signed up to a mutual recognition agreement with the EU, we would not need to batch test the vaccine again once it arrives in the UK, which could slow down the process, not least because having enough qualified persons to do the batch release testing could be a real challenge? Is he working on a mutual recognition agreement?

Matthew Hancock: We have that mutual recognition agreement in place now. The hon. Lady is right to point to the global scientific work—work between UK scientists and scientists based in the UK, German scientists at BioNTech, the American scientists and the Belgians, who are producing and manufacturing this vaccine. The approach has been about people coming together right around the world, and the UK has put more into the global search for a vaccine in cash terms than any other country; despite our medium size as a nation, we have been the most generous, and I am really proud of that.

Lee Anderson: It is great news about the vaccine, and, on behalf of the residents of Ashfield and Eastwood, let me say a big thanks to the Health Secretary, the scientists and the pharmaceutical companies.
The small businesses in Ashfield and Eastwood have taken a massive financial hit during lockdown, despite doing their very best to be covid-secure, while supermarkets have recorded record profits. I have received lots of complaints this week from customers and staff at local supermarkets who say that the stores are overcrowded and not covid-safe; this is happening all over the country and is unfair to the small businesses, which have been hit the hardest. While the UK is being vaccinated, in the run-up to Christmas traders in my constituency will do their very best to beat the virus. Will my right hon. Friend therefore please remind the supermarket executives that they have a duty to protect their staff, customers, our NHS and the whole of the UK in order to beat the virus and get our lives back?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I am very happy from this Dispatch Box to remind the supermarkets of their responsibilities to follow covid-secure guidelines and ensure that they are in place for their customers and staff. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for standing up for the small businesses  of Ashfield. It is tough in Ashfield at the moment—I get that. We have the restrictions in place only because they are absolutely necessary. I know that he understands that. He is a strong voice in this Chamber for all the small businesses and residents of Ashfield.

Jim Shannon: What a joy it was at 7 o’clock this morning to see this news being broken, and to see the Secretary of State as well. I put on the record my thanks to the Secretary of State and all his team for making this happen.
Is the Secretary of State aware that there are still those who are unable to access their flu vaccine? What steps have been taken to ensure that the flu vaccine roll-out is completed before the corona programme begins? What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Northern Ireland Assembly on providing vaccines and, more importantly, on the roll-out for our vulnerable and our frontline key workers?

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. It has been a big team effort. I echo his thanks to the whole team.
We have a further tranche of flu vaccines ready to go; that is just about to be rolled out. Making sure that flu vaccines are available right across the UK is very important. It is an issue that Robin Swann—my opposite number in the Northern Ireland Administration—and I have worked on extensively. He is incredibly diligent in ensuring that we get the flu vaccines rolled out to Northern Ireland. There is an interaction between the massive flu vaccine roll-out programme, which the NHS does every year but which this year is bigger than ever, and at the same time having to do a covid vaccine roll-out. We have taken that into account in the plans. In fact, before the announcement at 6.30 this morning, I was talking to Robin Swann on the phone, which shows how hard-working he is.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Secretary of State for all his hard work and congratulate him, the Government and all the scientists on the approval of the vaccine. The Secretary of State will know that Medway and neighbouring Swale, both of which are served by Medway Maritime Hospital in my constituency, are currently recording the first and the second highest covid rates in the country. Parts of Gillingham are recording rates as high as 753 per 100,000 people. I thank the Secretary of State for listening to representations from my local authority, myself and other local MPs on providing military assistance with rapid testing in Medway. The Secretary of State also knows that Medway has some of the highest health inequalities in the country, and that health inequalities are linked to high covid rates. Will he join me in paying tribute to the fantastic work of the hospital and its staff in helping local residents?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I will. There is a significant problem with the epidemic in Medway and north Kent, which I know my hon. Friend is concerned about. I pay tribute to those working on the frontline at Medway Maritime Hospital, which is one of the most pressured hospitals in the country at the moment, and also thank other parts of Kent and other trusts across Kent for providing mutual aid. We have to get this virus under control in Medway and across north Kent. The way to do that is for everybody to abide by the tier 3 restrictions  and to do everything they can to ensure that they do not pass on the disease, and then we can get these cases coming down. At the same time, we are going to inject a huge number of tests into Medway. We are working closely with Medway Council on this, and we will be using the armed forces to help make it happen, because we have to get this virus under control in Medway.

Tracy Brabin: I add my thanks to the scientists and to the volunteers who put their own health at risk so that we could beat this pandemic. My constituency has been under enhanced restrictions for many months now. The community has worked with the councils and others, and we have finally had a 41% drop in infections in the past week, but we need to go further to get out of the restrictions. Part of that is mass testing. Can the Minister clarify my understanding that councils get £14 per head for mass testing but do not get those boots on the ground from the Army—they get logistical advice and support, not physical help? We cannot do mass testing on the cheap, so will the Minister confirm that he will give the resources to councils? Will mass testing roll out before February 2021?

Matthew Hancock: Oh yes—mass testing is rolling out as we speak. My team have been working with Kirklees Council to make sure that the council’s enthusiasm for mass testing is matched by the resources that come its way in terms of the tests themselves, the financial support—£14 per test, as the hon. Lady says—and the logistical support from the armed forces. Kirklees’s plans are very advanced, I pay tribute to its local leadership and look forward to working with them to make it happen.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I want to get everybody in but we are getting a little behind schedule, so I ask for succinct questions.

Gagan Mohindra: I congratulate the Secretary of State and our Government on their brilliant work to make sure that we were the first country in the world to have a vaccine approved.
It would be worth the Secretary of State’s repeating the criteria and pecking order for the 800,000 doses. A colleague of mine, Councillor Bentley, always says that people need to hear something at least eight times before they embed it, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to repeat it?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely. We will follow a clinical prioritisation according to need. That starts with those who are resident in care homes and their carers, the over-80s and NHS staff, and then essentially comes down the age range, including those who are clinically extremely vulnerable. Through the experience of the past 10 months, we know, sadly, who is most likely to die of covid, and they are the people we will try to get to first.

Stephen Doughty: This is hugely welcome news. As well as paying tribute to the scientists, I pay tribute to all the teams in our local health boards who are preparing to deliver the vaccine—particularly Fiona Kinghorn and her team at Cardiff and Vale University Health Board—and the  armed forces who have been involved in the process. They have done an absolutely incredible job over the past few weeks to be ready for delivery.
The Secretary of State said, crucially, that this is a UK-wide effort; will he give a cast-iron guarantee that not only this tranche of vaccines but future tranches will be available on a completely equitable basis throughout the United Kingdom, so that we can bear down on this virus in every part of our country?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I can give that assurance. I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the volunteers, whom I should have thanked in response to an earlier question, and also thank in advance everybody in the NHS who is going to be involved in this roll-out. It is going to be a mammoth effort—people are going to be working really hard this winter, when people already work hard during winter in the NHS—and I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to them.

Greg Clark: I join the Secretary of State in thanking the scientists who were involved in this major breakthrough for their brilliance and hard work, and I join my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) in paying a personal tribute to the Secretary of State, who has been tenacious, positive and energetic right throughout this. We are the first in the world and a lot of that is down to him.
We need to keep the virus suppressed during the months ahead. One of the problems with test and trace is that quite often people do not disclose all their contacts because they do not want them to have to isolate for two weeks. Sir John Bell, whom I know the Secretary of State admires as much as I do, suggests that if we subject people who are isolated to two tests and they are both negative, they should be released. He thinks that will safely encourage people to share their contacts and suppress the spread of the virus. The Secretary of State has moved heaven and earth on vaccination; will he do this for test and release?

Matthew Hancock: It is a great day for science and a great day to be Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, I would have thought. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said, which was very generous.
On the point about repeat testing instead of isolation for contacts, that is something we are trialling right now, and I hope we can make significant progress on it in the weeks ahead.

Geraint Davies: Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister reassured me that Government guidance would stop non-essential travel out of areas in tiers 2 or 3 into less-infected areas. However, in fact the guidance says that
“if you live in a tier 2 area, you must continue to follow tier 2 rules when you travel to a tier 1 area.”
That means that someone can travel from higher-infection areas to lower-infection areas, including to Wales. Will the Secretary of State update the guidance to comply with the Prime Minister’s advice and stop non-essential travel from higher-infected to lower-infected areas ahead of the vaccine?

Matthew Hancock: The guidance is precisely as set out on gov.uk.

Mark Jenkinson: MayI place on record my thanks to Kate Bingham and the vaccines taskforce, as well as all the Government Departments that have played their part in this welcome announcement, particularly the part played by my right hon. Friend? Does he agree that as community testing and vaccines are rolled out throughout the winter and into the spring, the need even for localised restrictions will gradually be reduced and that life can begin to return to something closer to normality for my constituents?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. I have good news for the people of Workington and the whole country, which is that suppressing the virus using these restrictions until a vaccine came along has been the strategy all along, and we can just start to see the light at the end of the tunnel getting much brighter because we know we now have a vaccine.

Fleur Anderson: I also welcome this news and thank all the scientists involved in this great breakthrough. When it is my turn to have the vaccine, I will have absolutely no hesitation in doing so. When it comes to turns, can the Secretary of State confirm that community workers—care workers who work in the community going from home to home—will be part of the first assessment of clinical need? Then, after clinical need, will educational need be a factor in keeping our schools open? A school in Southfields has been closed for the last two weeks for lack of teachers being able to teach, so as a next phase, will educational need be a consideration for the roll-out of the vaccine?

Matthew Hancock: Once we have got through the clinical priority, of course there is a debate to be had about the order of priority after that. Between now and then, if we can get the repeat testing of contacts up and running and working across the board, I hope that that will be effective in ensuring that fewer teachers have to isolate because they are contacts as opposed to positive cases.

Mary Robinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this vaccine and on his amazing success in preparing us for its speedy roll-out. This is indeed a good news day. The news that hospital staff, care workers and patients will be among the first to receive it will be welcomed in my local hospital and across our care sector. We are keen to make a start. Meanwhile, as the vaccine rolls out to other groups, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing rapid targeted testing at scale in Stockport and across Greater Manchester as we continue to drive down our covid rates and work together to beat the virus?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I will. Let us work together and make that happen, with Stockport Council as well, and try to get those rates right down even further than they already are.

Caroline Lucas: I echo the congratulations to all involved with the good news about this vaccination. Last week, I asked the Secretary of State to
“publish the modelling his Department holds on the effect of the relaxation of covid-19 restrictions over Christmas on covid-19 transmission rates”.
Yesterday I was told that it was “not possible to answer” that question yet. That seems quite extraordinary. Has the Secretary of State been given an estimate of how many additional deaths are likely to be caused by the loosening of restrictions over Christmas? If he knows the answer, I ask him to tell us now. If he does not know the answer, why would he make such a major decision without any idea of the number of deaths that could result?

Matthew Hancock: We have to make judgments based on what is right, balancing the different considerations we have to take into account, including the yearning that many people have to come together at Christmas, and trying to find a balanced way through. We did that by working with the devolved authorities, and I am glad that we came to a UK-wide approach to Christmas, taking into account all the considerations that were necessary.

Greg Smith: May I add my voice of congratulation to my right hon. Friend and to the scientists, the pharmaceutical companies and everybody involved in today’s good news on securing that vaccine? However, he will know of my deep reservations on the severity of the restrictions being placed on my constituents through the new tier system. I am grateful for the time he took to discuss this with me yesterday. A big part of my reluctant decision to vote with the Government last night was the promise of more granularity when it comes to the review on 16 December. Can he therefore confirm that, if the numbers continue to come down, the Buckingham constituency can be considered for tier 1 before Christmas?

Matthew Hancock: I enjoyed the conversations that I had with my hon. Friend on the approach to the Division Lobby. I can confirm that the answer to his question is yes.

Rachael Maskell: I also congratulate the scientific community on their achievements today. But will the Secretary of State look with precision at the York model of delivering contact tracing? It has been a phenomenal story. Precision of contact tracing interviews has reduced the rate right down. They need the information on day one, not after 48 hours, which is being held back, but they also need to ensure that they get payment and support for people isolating. It works, so will the Secretary of State now follow that model?

Matthew Hancock: We will not only follow the model; we will promote it. The link between the local authority and the national system in York has indeed had the effect that the hon. Member rightly describes, and the teamwork between the two has meant that the figures in York—I was looking at them this morning—are coming right down. I pay tribute to everybody in York. It is an example of the national and local systems working together. We have to get the case rates right down all the way across North Yorkshire—indeed, everywhere in Yorkshire—and I am sure that we can.

Stephanie Peacock: Barnsley has fewer GPs than areas down south, so will the Secretary of State explain his plan to ensure that places such as my constituency are not left behind in the roll-out of the vaccine?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course. GPs, pharmacists, and hospital hubs and vaccination centres are the three routes to getting a vaccine. We will do it through the primary care networks, which are groups of GPs, and we will ensure that it is equitable right across the country. It is so important—not only between England and the devolved nations, but within England—to make the roll-out fair right across the land.

James Davies: Today’s vaccination announcement certainly is extremely good news. My right hon. Friend has already outlined that there will be equitable provision of the vaccine across the United Kingdom. Will he do the same for community mass testing, and will he outline the logistics involved in getting the vaccines and the community mass testing kits to Wales?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend, as a GP, understands this subject more than most. We are working with the Welsh Administration to try to get community testing throughout Wales. We are working in Merthyr Tydfil right now to get the case rates down there. I am very happy to work with him, the Welsh Administration and local councils to ensure that we get the case rates down wherever we can.

Martyn Day: As we await the welcome roll-out of a vaccine, test and trace remains vital. In Scotland, over 90% of cases and contacts have been reached, whereas England, with its reliance on Serco, has seen barely 60% of contacts reached—far lower than is needed to meaningfully limit the spread of covid. Will the Secretary of State advise us what clauses are in the contracts regarding this failure to deliver, and what is he going to do about it?

Matthew Hancock: I gently advise the hon. Member and other Scottish National party Members not to try to make this comparison. I looked into this matter in some detail when somebody else raised it. It turns out that the figures are only comparable if one strips out finding contacts in places where it is easy to get the contacts, such as care homes, because everybody who lives in them can easily be accounted for. Comparing apples and pears like this is not sensible and it is not right. Trying to drive a wedge between the public and private element of the system’s provision—which, by the way, Scotland also has—is a mistake.

Selaine Saxby: I, too, thank everyone involved in today’s good news from North Devon. My right hon. Friend will know that the Nightingale in Exeter has now opened, but he will also know that we are seeing a large number of NHS staff absences across Devon. Can he assure me that the Government are doing everything they can to keep staff safe, and to ensure that we have enough staff to keep all hospitals in Devon running as they should?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is right to raise this important issue. I am glad to say that we have more staff working in the NHS in Devon over the last year and we have increased the number of nurses nationally by over 14,000, but there are also those absent because of covid. I hope that regular testing will help to bring that number down; and then, of course, there is the vaccine, which I hope will solve this problem once and for all.

Ben Bradshaw: The Secretary of State will know that there was much disappointment in Devon that we were put in tier 2, although our rates are only 80 per 100,000 and coming down. Can he spell out exactly what has to happen in Devon over the next two weeks for us to move into tier 1? If the phenomenal success of the York modelling, which virtually eradicated covid in York, is for the reasons that he suggests, why is that not being done elsewhere?

Matthew Hancock: We are very happy to work with Devon County Council if it wants to come forward for that sort of model. We are constantly learning from around the country. The local-national partnerships often bring lessons, because people have chosen to do things slightly differently in a local area, and we can all learn from that. As for Devon coming into tier 1, Devon does have lower rates than many places, but it is not the lowest area in tier 2, as that honour belongs to my own county of Suffolk. There are elevated numbers of cases in some parts of Devon. What I urge everyone in Devon to do to get into tier 1 is to abide by the tier 2 rules and, more than that, to take personal responsibility to do all they can to reduce the spread of the virus.

Andrew Murrison: I say a big well done to everybody involved with this triumph. I share the Secretary of State’s concern over vaccine hesitancy, and he is right to say that everyone in this House has a duty to try to dispel it. Does he agree that, had this House not taken the decision on 16 October to empower the nimble MHRA and leave regulation instead to the European Medicines Agency until 31 December, he would not be in this happy position today?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I am very glad that we changed the law to allow the MHRA to make this authorisation on UK terms. This House voted unanimously to do that—well, we did not even have a vote as it went through without one. I am really glad that we were able to do that. I want to thank my right hon. Friend for his support and encouragement throughout this period. It has been a very, very long year as Health Secretary and I really appreciate his support.

Toby Perkins: The Health Secretary spoke about learning lessons and continuing to improve the system. My partner’s daughter is currently self-isolating because someone in her class at school has got coronavirus. She comes home and lives with her sister who is still expected to go to school. Surely a world-class testing system would be testing everyone in the bubble of those who had been sent home so that immediate family could be identified as having the virus or not, and could take appropriate action. Is there any more that can be done to improve this so that people such as my partner and many other parents at Holymoorside school will be able to take the necessary steps?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, we are piloting exactly that idea in, I think, eight schools right now and I hope to be able to roll it out once we have learned from those pilots.

Karl McCartney: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Lincoln has a high student population, something of which I am very proud, and  that our two universities are highly regarded. Quite a number of constituents have contacted me regarding the potential increase in cases when students return in January. What steps is he taking to support universities with this and what further steps can we take to support students who have to isolate as, often, they are far away from loved ones who can support them with shopping and so on and, as a Government we must do all we can to ensure that education continues as normal?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just as when students go home for Christmas, we are able to use the massive testing capacity that we have built up to ensure that they do so safely, so we propose to use testing to allow students to return safely. It is rather like the previous answer I just gave about being able to use testing instead of isolation in schools. I say gently to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) who, as he sat down, muttered about this: it is far better to work together, and it is only because of the massive testing capacity that has been built up through the actions of this Government that this is possible. We have the biggest testing capacity in Europe and we can use it for keeping people safe in schools and for allowing people to go safely to and from universities. This is exactly the sort of empowerment that we now have as a result of the huge testing programme that we have built.

Liz Twist: Last week we celebrated Carers Rights Day, and today they are not included on the priority list issued by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. They do a huge job in looking after some of our most vulnerable people. Will the Health Secretary look again at that decision?

Matthew Hancock: I am very happy to ensure that the JCVI takes all the appropriate considerations into account. However, it is not my decision to look at again. My decision is that we should follow the clinical advice. I think we should respect the JCVI, which is hugely expert in the clinical advice it gives.

Jason McCartney: It is fantastic news about the vaccine, but we cannot be complacent. The Kirklees director of public health briefed me and other local MPs last night that Kirklees needs to be in tier 3 right now. We were in the top five councils for covid cases, but good local action, combined with the national lockdown, has helped to reduce cases by 41%. Can the Health Secretary confirm that he will use localised data at the first review of the tiers on 16 December so that, if we continue that progress, we might be able to come out of tier 3? In the meantime, will he speak again to the Chancellor to see what extra financial support we can give to our pubs, restaurants and cafés at this challenging time?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. Of course, the Prime Minister announced extra funding for wet pubs yesterday. I am very happy to have a further discussion on that matter, but I also pay tribute to Kirklees, the people who live in Kirklees and my hon. Friend’s constituents, because it has been tough and it has been a long time. These measures have been in place for longer than almost anywhere else in the country, and the rates are now really coming down. Everybody should be very grateful for that.

Kevan Jones: The Secretary of State talks a lot about partnership at local level. Two weeks ago, his Department contacted the local public health directors and asked them to draw up plans for care home testing. Last week, his Department sent out a letter directly to care homes, bypassing those local directors of public health, to introduce testing in those care homes. Why was the approach changed? How will the data from that testing in local care homes be fed through to local directors of public health to do local tracing?

Matthew Hancock: It is very important that tracing happens, and the data, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is fed through to councils where that data agreement has been put in place. The best approach is for councils and the national system to work well together.

Andrew Griffith: Will the Health Secretary and his colleagues accept my congratulations on making sure the UK is one of the first countries in the world to have a deployable vaccine? Does he agree that businesses and their employees in the UK pharmaceutical sector, which invests over £4 billion a year of private risk capital, are heroes every bit as much as our wonderful NHS employees on the frontline?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely, and my hon. Friend gives the lie to this idea that we should somehow split public and private. I want to pay tribute, on behalf of all those in the House who believe in private enterprise, to everybody: the major global pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and AstraZeneca, the small entrepreneurial start-ups such as BioNTech and all those who have come to the aid of the nation. If they do it and make a profit, if they do that to save lives, that is fine by me.

Chris Bryant: Advent always starts with the prospect of good news, so this is a really good Advent. [Interruption.] Says the former vicar. Yes, quite.
Can I add one element to this issue of the prioritisation of vaccination? Covid has savagely exposed the health inequalities across the whole country. The poorest communities have suffered most, and the poorest communities often have the fewest health services and the least additional capacity to be able to deliver vaccination. As part of the mix, can we make sure that equality, real equity, across the whole country means that the poorest communities may need additional support?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. The hon. Gentleman raises a point that is important for the vaccination programme but also important thereafter, because if levelling up means anything, it means trying to level up health and make sure that the health inequalities of which he speaks are addressed.

Joanna Cherry: Everyone involved in delivering this great news is to be congratulated, including the Secretary of State. The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has said that provided that we receive the first doses of the vaccine as soon as we are expecting them in Scotland, we can start vaccinating people on Tuesday next week. Will the Secretary of State join me in applauding all at NHS Scotland who are going to make this possible?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I absolutely will. Our goal and our aim, and the commitment and agreement between all four nations of the United Kingdom, is that we will all start vaccination at the same time, fairly, across the four nations. That will happen early next week. When the announcement was made at 7 am, the one remaining regulatory hurdle was the batch testing, and that has now been completed, so we are on track to deliver on that commitment, which will be delivered through the NHS in all four corners of our land. We are working closely together. I spoke to my opposite number in Scotland early this morning to make sure that we are as co-ordinated as possible. This UK-purchased vaccine being delivered by NHS Scotland is a really good example of the power of this country when we all work together.

Alicia Kearns: The first country in the world to have a vaccine, and a world-class testing programme—what a phenomenal achievement. I thank my right hon. Friend and all the scientists and clinicians who have made today a reality. I am pleased that before Christmas we should have vaccine centres established in Oakham and in Melton Mowbray in my constituency. Will he please join me in extending his thanks to my local councils, our clinicians and residents for their enormously hard work to get ready to bring this vaccine to my communities?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I absolutely will. I pay tribute to their work on preparing for the vaccine roll-out, and also their work in keeping the virus under control, which is such an important task, is so difficult, and has consumed so much effort this year, yet there is still more work to be done over this winter to get the vaccine rolled out.

Angela Eagle: Two injections per person for everyone in the country is going to take an awful long time. The Prime Minister was hoping that it would be done by Easter. Does the Health Secretary share that timetable or will he publish another one? Is he planning on making this vaccine available again next year, since we do not know how long immunity lasts, and covid is likely to be endemic and with us for some time to come?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Lady asks two incredibly important questions, the first of which the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) asked and I did not answer, for which I apologise. The speed at which we can continue this roll-out will be determined by the speed at which Pfizer can manufacture and whether the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, of which we have 100 million doses on order, is approved by the MHRA. I am afraid that I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s question on the timetable, or indeed the hon. Gentleman’s, because it is dependent on the approval of AstraZeneca and the manufacturing process of the Pfizer vaccine.
On the hon. Lady’s second question, I have completely forgotten what it was. [Hon. Members: “Next year.”] Next year, yes, and whether this vaccine is only short-term. One of the reasons we have 357 million doses from seven different vaccines is to be able to vaccinate with further doses if that is needed in due course, whether that is through re-procurement of one of the existing vaccines or by switching to a different vaccine if that is  clinically appropriate. That is absolutely part of the potential future plans that we have under consideration, but it is too early to know the answer to that question as well.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is wonderful news on the vaccine—many congratulations to all involved, including the Secretary of State. He will concede that it will be some months before restrictions can be lifted. North Yorkshire is the largest county in England by miles—it takes three hours to drive from one side of it to the other—and the variation in infection rates is considerable across the region. Will he consider, when he moves tiers around in two weeks’ time, moving one of the seven districts of North Yorkshire with low infection rates into tier 1?

Matthew Hancock: As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we do look at the human geography and how the epidemiology shows the spread of the virus is occurring across the country, especially, but not limited to, the big rural counties. We have to be slightly careful in North Yorkshire. One of the challenged areas is Scarborough, where the case rates are elevated. I appreciate that that is a long way from my hon. Friend’s patch. We do look at it at that granular level and make decisions on that basis, but the decision to put the whole of North Yorkshire into tier 2 was taken looking at each part of North Yorkshire on its merits.

Margaret Greenwood: Dr de Gruchy, the president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, has said:
“it is completely incomprehensible that the Government is not increasing the public health grant”
to local authorities next year. She spoke of the importance of
“learning the lessons of how existing health inequalities have driven and exacerbated the impact of COVID-19”,
as well as addressing
“the socio-economic determinants of health”
and giving public health teams the resources they need both to continue the fight against covid-19 and for the longer term. Will the Secretary of State pay heed to that message, and will he call on the Chancellor to give local public health teams the funding they need?

Matthew Hancock: We are increasing the public health grant next year. Also, the public health grant is but one part of the massive overall investment in public health that we have made this year and will, of course, have to continue to make next year as we get the virus under control.

Sara Britcliffe: The news this morning about the vaccines gives my constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden light at the end of a very dark tunnel. The announcement on care homes is genuinely brilliant news and something I have pushed for, as the Secretary of State will know, both in and out of this Chamber. As has been mentioned, mass testing is also a vital part in our fight against coronavirus. Will the Secretary of State confirm when it will be rolled out in tier 3 areas such as Hyndburn and Haslingden, so we can continue to get our rate down and get our brilliant hospitality sector up again?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is right. The candle of hope is burning brighter today. On the mass testing she is so enthusiastic about, I can tell her that this morning when I asked my officials to ensure that the community testing programme that is being developed for Hyndburn is advanced as quickly as possible, they told me that they had been told of the need for it by so many people and that so many people had been lobbied by her, that it was already in hand. I suppose that that goes to show just how vociferous my hon. Friend is in fighting for the people of Hyndburn.

Rosie Winterton: Order. We will have a three-minute suspension.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Sitting suspended.

Automated External Defibrillators  (Public Access)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Jim Shannon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the installation of automated external defibrillators in public buildings, sporting facilities, schools, higher education and other education and skills facilities, and facilities that provide care to vulnerable people; and to make associated provision about training and signage.
This is the third attempt to bring in a Bill of this nature, following two previous efforts by the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield). May I put on the record my thanks to her for her efforts and commitment? I was happy to co-sponsor her Bill in 2018, which fell due to Parliament being dissolved. I stand today once more to inform the House that the push for mandatory installation of these life-saving devices in our public buildings must be welcomed.
As the Member for Strangford in Northern Ireland, I felt that it was right that I took this opportunity to present this Bill because the defibrillator, of course, was invented by Professor Frank Pantridge, who was born in Hillsborough in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). Professor Pantridge pioneered the automated external defibrillator, or the portable defibrillator, at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast, in collaboration with the British Heart Foundation.
Behind this Bill lie stories of tragedy and triumph. Those stories must be shared, because they have happened across the whole community. In December 2019, I met Mark King, whose son Oliver died in March 2011 from a cardiac arrest when taking part in a swimming race. Oliver was 12 years old. He was an outstanding young athlete and a much-loved little boy, who unfortunately had a hidden heart condition. Had a defibrillator been quickly available, his chances of survival would have been so much greater, and it is possible that he would have been here to celebrate his 21st birthday back in January this year.
It is because a defibrillator was not available, because it is still not mandatory for any building to have one, that Oliver’s death inspired his daddy, Mark King, to set up the Oliver King Foundation, which has worked since 2012 to save as many lives as possible by raising awareness of the importance of public access defibrillators. To date, the foundation has placed 4,500 AEDs in schools and organisations across the United Kingdom and trained 70,000 staff in AED awareness, and more than 47 lives have been saved by the defibrillators that the foundation has placed. That has been achieved through effort born from heartbreak. I say to the Government that it is time we removed that burden from the foundation’s shoulders and required mandatory installation of AEDs as Oliver King’s legacy.
Members may not be aware that 270 children die across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland each year from hidden heart conditions. Many have died in school settings and sports fields. Those places are where defibrillators need to be, and they need to be there not simply because someone has fundraised in their community, but because they are required to be there. That is the reason for this Bill.
When a defibrillator is available, it can mean the difference between life and death. A member of my office staff is a volunteer with St John Ambulance and assisted at an incident where a young boy had collapsed outside a school. He had no heartbeat. The school had a defibrillator on site, and she assisted a trained staff member as this child, lying on the cold ground in his school uniform, was revived on the third cycle by a combination of a defibrillator and CPR, so that when paramedics arrived they were met with a living child instead of a scene of unspeakable heartbreak. I am happy to say that that child recovered and eventually returned to school, but we can imagine how it must have been for his daddy, who was there, trying to reassure his wife over the phone. The heart must be restarted within three minutes, and how different it could have been if no defibrillator had been available.
I remember well when a man collapsed in my constituency while watching a game of football in the grounds of Portavogie football club. He had gone into cardiac arrest when a defibrillator was brought from the club house, just a few metres away, and applied to him. On the fourth cycle he began to breathe. That man is alive today because a defibrillator was at his side in seconds, and that is so important. That small machine can restore life, and its benefit is that anyone can use one, because once they have opened it, audio instructions tell them exactly what to do. The Bill’s purpose is to increase rates of survival from cardiac arrest by making public access to a defibrillator as quick as possible. Seconds count when the heart stops beating.
There are many reasons why a heart suddenly stops working, and it could happen to anyone, even the very young. Sudden cardiac death kills 12 people aged 35 and under each week across Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Many of the young people who die are involved in physical activities when it happens. Although such incidents are indiscriminate, the availability of defibrillators should not be. Of the 30,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests across Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom each year, the overall survival rate is a shocking one in 10. It is estimated that public access to defibrillators is used in fewer than 5% of those incidents.
We should all agree that those are sad statistics, but one even sadder statistic also need mentioning. The British Heart Foundation has reported—I say this gently—that women are less likely to be given CPR or defibrillation by bystanders than men, if they suffer an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a public place. Some 68% of women will receive assistance compared with 77% of men, which means that women are less likely to survive, even if a defibrillator is readily available. Bystanders are afraid that they might be inappropriately touching a lady, and one aim of the Bill is to educate and remind us all that education and awareness across our communities is urgently needed. Nobody should die for lack of CPR or defibrillation because people are afraid to touch them.
The timing of this Bill coincides with the intention to include first aid and CPR in the national school curriculum in England this year, 2020. Norway has been teaching CPR in schools for many years, and bystander CPR has caused its survival rates to be as high as 25%, compared with less than 10% in the United Kingdom. St John Ambulance runs Badgers and Cadets schemes for those aged seven to 19. Those schemes teach CPR and the use  of defibrillators, so that children and young people learn how to save lives. It makes perfect sense for that training also to take place in our schools. We in the devolved nations should get involved with that idea, and call on our education Ministers seriously to consider making those life-saving skills part of our children’s everyday learning in school.
This Bill needs to be robust and to include a requirement on councils to comply. If we can afford to build new buildings and facilities, we can afford a few extra hundred pounds on installing automated external defibrillators. That should be guided by having an AED per building on a facility of 7,500 square metres of floor space, and a register must be established to record the location of an AED, with a programme of maintenance and annual testing. I understand that there are now more AEDs installed in public places today than there were when young Oliver King lost his life. That is to be acknowledged and welcomed, but we must go a lot further. We cannot leave the availability of such a life-saving device to the result of a random decision or a mayoral recommendation.
AEDs are almost always obtained through the efforts of community fundraising. Indeed, one was recently installed near my office in Newtownards by the staff of Wardens, who raised the money themselves. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), who is unable to be here today, told me about the incredible commitment by one of his constituents, Mr David Sutton-Lloyd, who made it his mission to see publicly accessible AEDs installed across the length and breadth of Newton Aycliffe. Those efforts are to be praised, but why must it remain incumbent on shop staff and dedicated individuals such as Mr Sutton-Lloyd to purchase AEDs for the safety of others? They do not have to purchase fire extinguishers or smoke alarms that public buildings are required by law to have in place. Why should we, as legislators in this House, continue to leave the availability of defibrillators as arbitrary when we have the figures for how many people die from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest each week and when, tragically, many of them are children?
It is easy to listen to the statistics being read out and, sometimes, we can become cold to them, but then be shocked and moved by them, but nothing drives home the message more effectively than seeing with one’s own  eyes the miraculous revival of a human life by a defibrillator. I would ask how many hon. Members have witnessed a person collapse suddenly and stop breathing. Some have, and many of us probably have not, but that does not matter.
Most of us will remember the footage of former Bolton Wanderers player Fabrice Muamba, who collapsed from cardiac arrest on the pitch, during a live broadcast of the match. His heart stopped beating for 78 minutes, but his chances of survival were increased from the start because CPR and a defibrillator were applied during those crucial first few minutes. Such a scene is deeply distressing to witness, but nothing is more distressing than the needless loss of life.
I call on Members to think about that wee boy Oliver King. He was known as “Mr Special” by his parents and all who knew him. He should have turned 21 this year. Also think about my constituent who will celebrate another Christmas this month with his loved ones. The difference in those stories is one thing: a defibrillator—the absence of one and the availability of one.
We can no longer leave it to the public to hold raffles or coffee mornings. We must consider it our duty as legislators to require AEDs to be present in public buildings, sporting facilities, places of education and wherever someone, be they young or elderly, might fall down and never get up again. The Bill will ensure that if they do, they will have every chance of getting up again. I urge Members to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jim Shannon, John Howell, Paul Girvan, David Linden, Carla Lockhart, Maria Eagle, Caroline Nokes, Chris Green, Mrs Pauline Latham, Alison Thewliss, Mr Peter Bone and Sir Jeffrey Donaldson present the Bill.
Jim Shannon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2021, and to be printed (Bill 222).

Rosie Winterton: I must now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The Ayes were 362 and the Noes were 202, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Agriculture

Victoria Prentis: I beg to move,
That the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.

Rosie Winterton: With this we will take the following motions:
That the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.
That the draft World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.

Victoria Prentis: These are the first regulations produced using the powers under the new Agriculture Act 2020. They lay the groundwork for our new agricultural policy.
Turning to the first of the statutory instruments, the draft regulations will assign additional functions to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. They will enable the AHDB to collect, manage and make available information regarding the identification, movement and health of animals, and to allocate unique identification codes as a means of identifying animals. That information will feed into a new livestock information service.
Of the 165,000 livestock farmers today, nearly 60,000 keep more than one species. Therefore, those farmers need to engage with different services and systems. The livestock information service replaces separate species-specific systems with a single portal for keepers to meet their reporting responsibilities. It should be more cost-effective and easier to use, and it will allow faster and more accurate livestock traceability.
The AHDB will also run a unique number identification service on behalf of England and Wales controlling the issuing of official individual identification numbers to animals. The new system will allow for value-added services where submitted data can be used to generate information in wider areas such as livestock productivity and disease management.

Chris Bryant: Since the Minister mentioned Wales, may I raise the issue of Welsh lamb? Sheep are already pregnant with next year’s flock, and we hope that lambs will be frolicking all over the hills in the springtime, but the real worry for many Welsh farmers is that they will not be able to sell their product in the rest of the European Union. What plans have the Government put in place to deal with the eventuality that 50% of the product that presently goes to the European Union cannot be sold?

Victoria Prentis: It is a delight to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. It is not absolutely on point with this statutory instrument, but it is always a delight to talk about Welsh lamb. I am still very hopeful that we will get a zero-tariff deal with the European Union, which would be a good outcome for Welsh lamb. In the event that we do not get such a deal, as I hope he knows, we worked up various schemes in our previous planning for a no-deal exit, and I am sure that, if needed, those can be got out and worked up once again.
To return to the regulations, this new traceability system, which will be available for sheep in the future, will allow us better to manage disease, which is what we are talking about. We are not talking about deal or no deal at the moment; we are talking about management of disease in lambs, Welsh or otherwise. The system should also enable us to protect human health, giving confidence to trading partners—with whom we hope we will be able to trade—and enable better use of data to manage on-farm productivity and efficiency.
I turn to the Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. The legislation governing direct payment schemes contains financial ceilings that are used to calculate direct payments to farmers. However, the legislation only includes financial ceilings up to and including the 2020 claim year. These regulations specify how the Secretary of State will set financial ceilings for England beyond the end of this year. These regulations also make minor changes to ensure that the schemes continue to work effectively in England beyond 2020. That includes replacing dates specific to the 2020 scheme year with equivalent dates that are not year-specific. The regulations also remove rules that are not relevant to England, such as those relating to voluntary coupled support.
No substantive policy changes are made by these regulations. They ensure the continuity of direct payments in England beyond the end of this year and are largely technical. Farmers will see no change on the ground as a result of them. The Government remain committed to beginning to phase out direct payments from 2021 as part of their ambitious agricultural reforms in England. We will bring forward separate legislation to make those changes. Direct payment schemes fall within devolved competence. The devolved Administrations plan to make their own legislation in relation to direct payment schemes in their own territories.
I turn to the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020. The World Trade Organisation’s agreement on agriculture divides domestic support into green, blue or amber depending on the support’s potential to distort trade. Under the agreement, each country must limit the amount of trade-distorting amber box domestic support given to agricultural producers. The UK’s overall amber box spend limit remains unchanged after EU exit. These regulations specify the amount of amber box payments that may be given in each country of the UK. Those limits have been set at a level that will not constrain policy choices, meaning that there should be no impact on farmers. The regulations also outline the procedure for classifying such schemes and permit the Secretary of State to request information from the DAs where that is needed to enable the UK to satisfy its obligations under the agreement on agriculture.
These statutory instruments implement provisions provided for by the Agriculture Act. In the case of direct payments, they provide important and necessary continuity for farmers. I urge Members to agree to these regulations, which I commend to the House.

Daniel Zeichner: It is a pleasure to be here and to speak to these statutory instruments, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed, they are an eclectic mix of instruments, and I say at the outset that we will  not be opposing them. May I say something positive about the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board? I know it is not always supported throughout the sector, but my experience has been very positive, and it does very valuable work.
On livestock movement, we know how critical a tracing system is. We need only look back to some of the awful experiences with foot and mouth back in 1967 and 2001 and, indeed, to the lessons learned by 2007, and we have only to think about bovine TB and, I fear, African swine fever, which is currently moving across Europe. There are worrying developments around avian flu, which is a different issue, and the Opposition will do everything we can to work with the Government to tackle that.
May I also make reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting patiently? There was a suggestion from the Secretary of State as to what should be done in these circumstances, which I think rather unhelpfully was a suggestion to switch to beef. I suspect that will not satisfy my hon. Friend. He may wish to intervene.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to be enticed. Yes, the Secretary of State suggested to me that those affected should all move over to beef. The truth, as far as I can see, is that first, that is difficult to achieve on most Welsh mountains and, secondly, it is not exactly an environmentally friendly direction of travel. More importantly, did my hon. Friend catch the intimation from the Minister that if this produce is not going to be able to be sold, because of tariffs within the European Union, basically all that additional produce will just be burnt?

Daniel Zeichner: This is possibly not the place to have this debate, but my hon. Friend is right to raise it and the Minister will have the opportunity to respond later. Of course, we are seeing problems with wool, as well, so it is a troubled time for people. Obviously we hope that we end up without tariffs, because that will be a much better outcome.

Jim Shannon: Clearly the rules, as the Minister set out, are specific to England, but the shadow Minister referred to the movement of cattle and sheep in the United Kingdom mainland. He will know, as we do, that that movement of traffic is to and fro from Northern Ireland to the mainland. When it comes to the movement of any animals, does he think we need continuity with the payment scheme and the flexibility to be able to move cattle and sheep not only north and south from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, but from Northern Ireland to Scotland and to England and Wales?

Daniel Zeichner: The hon. Member tempts me further and further away from the instrument. I can assure him I will be coming to some of those points, because it is obviously key that we resolve these issues of movement within the island of Ireland. They are complicated and pressing for many, many people.
We are told that this instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union, which is a welcome relief, I suspect, given the number of instruments we have been discussing in recent weeks. Indeed, it comes  from the newly passed Agriculture Act 2020. It makes provisions for better traceability. It was noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and the Minister has outlined many of the proposals, so I will not repeat all of that.
The proposals set out by the AHDB for a new livestock information service system are important. It will provide a multi-species traceability system, and DEFRA tells us that it will enable the Department and the Animal and Plant Health Agency to trace all livestock movements through a single, more efficient system, which would be welcome, because livestock are currently identified through three separate livestock traceability systems: one for cattle, one covering sheep and goats and one for pigs. The service was introduced over the past two decades as various pieces of EU legislation came into force. As the Minister said, the existing systems are species-specific, so keepers with more than one species of livestock need to switch between databases. The existing systems are also designed to collect, rather than share data and, extraordinarily, are paper-based.
I am told that the AHDB will also run a unique number identification service on behalf of England and Wales, which will control the issuing of official individual identification numbers to animals. The Scottish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland have noted that they will pursue their own systems for issuing identification numbers to animals. The service will operate in England but because, as has been said, animals can and do move across borders, the instrument applies across the UK so that AHDB may handle data on animal movements and traceability systems outside England where necessary to allow a complete picture of animal traceability. Further collective work involving all four Administrations is aimed at agreeing a UK view of key data to support traceability.
As I said, AHDB has established a subsidiary company, Livestock Information Ltd, to carry out the services on behalf of AHDB and DEFRA. We are told that the estimated cost is £32 million over three years, and the projected monetised net benefit using a 10-year appraisal method is conservatively placed at £30 million. AHDB says that improved traceability data will enable a range of other benefits, including reducing the impact of endemic diseases, increasing our ability to act quickly and proportionately in the event of an exotic disease outbreak, and improving livestock business productivity.
Some questions follow from that, however. Under the provisions of the instrument, each devolved Administration will have their own database. How will we be able to trace animals as they move across borders? On the implementation of the system, will there be an instant switchover, or a transition period in which both old and new systems operate alongside one another? What is the timeframe for getting the new traceability system up and running?
Farmers currently pay a levy for the use of AHDB services. In bringing the new traceability system under the remit of AHDB, DEFRA says there are no plans for a new levy to fund any of the services the regulations bring in. “No plans” is a term that is regularly used, often euphemistically. Can the Minister give a guarantee that there will not be a levy? It appears that Livestock Information Ltd will cost £32 million of taxpayer money  that is immediately handed to a subsidiary in which DEFRA has a minority stake. Will the Minister explain why that is?
Looking at the direct payments instrument, we have been here before. The draft regulations are laid under the new Agriculture Act 2020 and need to come into force on 1 January 2021 to ensure that direct payment support will be available for farmers in England for the 2021 claim year. The Government have confirmed the continuation of direct payments for 2020 in the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which we discussed back in January, but as we heard earlier this week, some of the payments will be phased out in England under the new Agriculture Act from next year over the following seven years, beginning with a 5% to 25% cut in farmers’ income next year.
This statutory instrument has been noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. According to DEFRA, the instrument aims to maintain the status quo as far as possible for farmers next year. The instrument sets rules about the financial ceilings used to calculate farmers’ direct payments, giving the Secretary of State time to determine the ceilings for the 2021 claim year before the start of that year, as the current financial ceilings extend only to the 2020 claim year. It also removes from 2021 elements of direct payments that have not previously been implemented in England, some of which have been used in the rest of the UK. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee notes that separate legislation will be required for the Government’s planned reforms to phase out direct payments from 2021.
Back in January, when we discussed the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act, Labour pressed the Government on the need for a legislative mechanism for direct payments to farmers to be continued beyond 2020. We predicted that we would be back later in the year—and here we are, with the Government using the Agriculture Act as that mechanism to use this SI for 2021.
We welcome the shift from supporting land ownership to helping farmers restore land and improve our natural environment, but farmers are rightly concerned about how they are going to survive during the transition the Government propose. On Monday, it was revealed that direct payments will start to be cut next year, and will be cut by 50% by 2024, yet the new environmental land management schemes will not fully up and running until 2024. What was once envisaged as a bridging sustainable farming incentive payment will not be available for farmers until 2022, and in the view of many, including Labour Members, there is still too little detail of the schemes to help farmers to plan for uncertain times ahead. Based on DEFRA’s own statistics, 75% of farming enterprises are currently unprofitable without direct payments. We fear that many farms will be left financially unviable under the Government’s proposals.
A recent survey of landowners and farmers by the Country Landowners Association found high levels of concern about the implementation of the new ELM schemes, with 76% of respondents fearing that the payments would not be sufficient and 57% thinking that administration would be poor. The Rural Payments Agency will be administering new payment schemes—we all know that it has had a troubled history, although it has improved in recent times—and there remain real doubts about the capacity to deliver new systems alongside administering legacy payments.
The high-risk approach to our farmers’ future security is, I am sorry to say, of a piece with the highly ideological approach that the Government have taken to farming post Brexit. The Government still refuse to back British farmers with a legal guarantee that they will not be undercut by cheaper, lower-standard food allowed in through trade deals that, despite the claims, will still lack proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I will not go over familiar ground again, the Minister will be glad to hear, but let me put some specific questions on this instrument. The draft regulations that she has come forward with today provide farmers with direct payments for just 2021. Will regulations need to be laid every year for the seven years of the agricultural transition period to continue direct payments in their current form prior to phasing out? When are the Government going to come forward with regulations for phasing out direct payments?
These provisions remove a number of elements of direct payments that have not been applied in England but have been elsewhere in the UK. These include the redistributive payment and voluntary coupled support schemes that have been used in Wales and Scotland. They also take out the active farmer provision and basic payment scheme agri-environment transfer. Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing here that will restrict devolved Administrations from making their own choices? While we understand the concerns about the active farmer provision, we still believe that measures are needed to ensure that money goes to farmers, not just landholders.
This is a continuation of direct payments to farmers for next year, which is welcome, but we know that the Government are planning to cut direct payments for next year. What support are they going to give farmers facing a 5% cut in their income next year? Has DEFRA undertaken an impact assessment on what direct payment cuts would look like to farmers in different sectors and farm sizes, and will they release that impact assessment?
We know that different parts of the UK will now be pursuing different payment support schemes for farmers, as agriculture is a devolved area. How will the Government ensure that we do not see market distortions emerging across the UK? Given its past performance failures, can the Minister guarantee that the Rural Payments Agency is competent to administer the many changes and parallel systems emerging over the next few years?
In conclusion, let me turn to perhaps the most complicated of the three SIs before us, on WTO compliance. This instrument has been made under the Agriculture Act but relates to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. It introduces a legal framework to ensure UK-wide compliance with WTO commitments on the use of domestic support for agriculture. I understand that this is a largely technical change following our withdrawal, so this SI was not reported on by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
While a member of the EU, UK interests at the WTO were represented by the European Commission, which was responsible for ensuring that the UK complied with WTO agreements. That included the WTO agreement on agriculture, which sets out a number of general rules and commitments that signatory nations must follow on agricultural trade practices, including disciplines on domestic support, market access and export subsidies. Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the UK  will now represent its own interests at the WTO, and the UK Government will be responsible for ensuring that the UK complies with its obligations and commitments as an independent WTO member. These include obligations relating to the classification and notification of domestic support and the UK’s commitment to reduce its aggregate measurement of support.
As the Minister said, this instrument specifies the amount of amber box payments that may be given in each country of the United Kingdom—amber box payments being those that have trade-distorting effects, which are limited under the WTO agreement on agriculture. This instrument also outlines the procedure for classifying such schemes and permits the Secretary of State to request information where this is needed to enable the United Kingdom to satisfy its obligations. The explanatory memorandum says that it
“allows for each UK administration to design and implement their own agricultural support schemes within an amber box spending envelope.”
These provisions stem from part 6 of the Agriculture Act, and they were criticised at the Committee stage by the devolved Administrations. There were concerns that, despite agriculture being a devolved area, the Act gave the Secretary of State the centralised power to decide how farm support payments everywhere in the UK will be classified in relation to international trade rules, and to set limits on how much can be paid out by each Administration. At the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill, Labour sought to amend the Bill by requiring Ministers to consult with each devolved authority on a draft of the relevant regulations. This was rejected by the Government, but the Minister committed to consult with the devolved Administrations on the making of regulations under part 6.
The Government have outlined in their explanatory memorandum for this SI:
“These regulations were drafted in consultation with policy officials from the devolved administrations, who were given the opportunity to comment at each drafting stage. It was possible to accommodate the majority of their comments and suggested changes whilst recognising that UK Government’s position is that ensuring compliance with international obligations remains a reserved issue.”
I have to say that, from speaking to some of my Scottish colleagues, I am not entirely convinced they completely agree with that characterisation of the discussion. So can the Minister explain what consultations have been had with the devolved authorities on the content of these regulations, how the majority of their comments and suggested changes were accommodated, and what suggestions, if any, were not accommodated?
In conclusion, these are indeed an eclectic group of instruments, but they are all important to make sure our farmers are paid, to ensure that we use the latest technology to best effect to maintain the health of our livestock and to ensure that agricultural support systems are WTO-compliant. We are not opposing them, but there are questions I have posed, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.

Danny Kruger: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to discuss the second instrument about direct payments, and I beg your forbearance and that of the  Front Benchers, who I expect thought they would get away with being the only speakers this afternoon. I am sorry about that, but I put in because I did not get the chance to speak in the debates on the Agriculture Bill earlier this year. I hope the House and you will indulge me for a few minutes while I speak about Wiltshire farmers and the role I think farming could play in the UK after Brexit.
I much enjoyed the Bill Committee, and especially the erudition and good humour of the two Front Benchers. My hon. Friend the Minister and I have something in common, which is a parent in the public eye—both with some strong farming and food credentials, and both with some suspicions about what the Government are up to it when it comes to agriculture—

Victoria Prentis: indicated dissent.

Danny Kruger: The Minister denies it. It is true to say that I do not think she had the pleasure of the experience of a convoy of tractors driving through Banbury in protest at the Agriculture Bill, with a huge placard on the front tractor saying, “Daddy knows best”, which is what I had in Marlborough, with a placard saying, “Mummy knows best”. Of course, Mummy does know best; she just did not understand the question in that instance. I did of course disagree with those farmers on the detail of the Agriculture Bill, but I did and do share their concerns, and I want to try to summarise those today. There are basically two: there is a practical concern about farm incomes, and there is a strategic or philosophical concern about the place of farming in this country’s future.
Let me summarise the practical concern first. We are basically moving the subsidy—some billions of pounds—from farming as it is traditionally understood, as the management of land for the production of food, to environmental stewardship. The overall budget might be the same and individual farm incomes may be guaranteed for a few years, but this is a profound change in the business model of farming. I was very pleased to get assurances on Monday from the Secretary of State in his statement that the switch is not intended to reduce food production or to take land out of cultivation and put it to other uses. I believe him, and I am sure that is the intention. I fully support the overall mission of the reforms, which is to enable sustainable food production in this country, but the design and details of the system are essential to make sure that we do not inadvertently make people, against their best instincts and against the traditions of their own land, become unwilling environmental stewards rather than food producers.
We all know the jokes about farmers being asked, “What do you farm?” and answering, “Subsidies, mostly.” I am all for subsidies, and I am all for stewardship and for paying farmers to maintain the forests, the streams and the soil, but let us make sure they farm animals and crops. The details of the scheme are what matters here, and we need to get on with it. The time is tight for phasing out basic payments, and we still do not know the full details of what will replace them. I appreciate and applaud the reason for this—the Government want to consult with farmers on the best system for them—but I hope this can happen soon and finish quickly.
Let me finish with the strategic question, which, in a sense, underpins all the technical debate that we are having about subsidies. The Opposition spent much of  the debate on the Agriculture Bill talking about trade deals. Although, in a sense, trade deals had nothing to do with that Bill, which was about support for and regulation of British farms, I appreciate why they discussed them. The fact is that a bad trade deal could undermine a good Agriculture Bill—and it was a good Agriculture Bill, especially once food production was recognised as something worth including.
I applaud the Government for the deal they did to keep the National Farmers Union and the Department for International Trade happy by ensuring proper statutory oversight of the trade deals to make sure that food standards and farming interests are protected. We are now in the process of negotiating those trade deals, and here is where the philosophical difference arises; I fear that there may be a philosophical difference between DEFRA and DIT.
It is right that the Departments have slightly different approaches. DIT is there to maximise trade for British companies so that they benefit from lucrative exports and British consumers benefit from cheap imports. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate my old friends Douglas Carswell and Dominic Johnson on their appointments as non-executive directors of DIT this week. They are great patriots with all the right instincts—so much so that I see that DIT has been dubbed by some Conservatives “the Ministry of Sound”. I am pleased about their appointments, but I am not sure that Douglas Carswell or Dominic Johnson has ever so much as grown a tray of cress, let alone planted a carrot or had anything to do with actual farming. I wish all power to the Minister’s elbow in the ongoing oversight that she will exercise over her colleagues in the trade deals that are being negotiated.
We must not offshore our carbon emissions or animal cruelty to other countries. We must not sell out our farmers. We must make a moral and political decision to rely more on British food. Partly this is about food security—as this year shows, it would be unwise to take land out of production that we might need in future crises—but it is also about a way of life. In a mysterious sense, landscape is a human construct bounded by walls and ditches, marked by copses and fields that have been maintained by people who owned or rented the land for generations. Land is made beautiful and meaningful because it is used, not just for the public good of environmental wellbeing, but for the private good of the people who live on it. That is why there is a special place for farmers as stewards of a landscape in use.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience; I thank the House too. Let me also express my appreciation of the Minister for her work and my support for these statutory instruments. We must maintain direct payments for our farmers. We must introduce variable tariffs to make it pointless for foreign countries to export to this country food made to lower standards than ours. We must protect our farmers, because their private good is the public good.

Dave Doogan: There are three instruments before us today. I will not touch on the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020, which affects England and Wales, but I will discuss the provisions relating to the World Trade Organisation and direct payments to farmers.
Before I do that, I predict that the Minister, as she often does, will cite the consent that she enjoys from colleagues in the Scottish Government on these matters. I will expand a little on what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has said —that there is sometimes a huge difference between consent and delight, or even between consent and something remotely similar to what we would do if we had the legislative authority to do it. That is sometimes the space in which our Ministers in the devolved Administrations find themselves.
The World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020 set a limit of 12.67% of total UK amber box support for Scotland. This reliance on a percentage of the total UK quantum means that while Scotland remains within the UK, we must remain subject to the vagaries of the total UK figure. It is not inconceivable that in a mixture of ill winds and fair, high yields and low, we could see the figure to which that 12.67% relates reduce at a UK level—at a time when Scotland may need to increase the support to its growers and producers that is satisfactory even at a conceptual level. In addition, the Secretary of State holds the final say and authority to determine the classification of support as blue, green or amber box support. I am interested in better understanding the principles of consent and safeguards for fairness that will uphold that authority justly.
It is fortuitous that the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) is here. During the agricultural transition plan statement on 30 November, many Scottish MPs pressed the Secretary of State for assurances that state aid principles in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would not be used to prevent the Scottish Government from providing agricultural support in the way that they choose. No such assurances were provided, yet in answering a subsequent question during the same debate from the hon. Gentleman, who was concerned that Scottish farmers may be able to undercut Wiltshire farmers because of a difference in devolved Government support, the Secretary of State was quick to make an assurance and a commitment to the hon. Gentleman that that would not be possible—I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving him prior notice that I would mention him in this debate —so perhaps the Minister could address some of these points.
As regards direct payments to farmers, the comprehensive spending review made clear that Scotland will be short-changed, especially rural Scotland. Support for rural Scotland will be £117 million short of what was promised by 2025, despite the fact that the Government made a manifesto commitment to match EU support. The Secretary of State announced that, by 2028, support for farmers in England will move away from the direct payment scheme based on the amount of land farmed, with the initial budget of £1.8 billion dropping to half that by 2024. To be clear, we fully support the move away from rewarding land ownership to rewarding output, productivity and land stewardship. Nevertheless, that leaves several years in which farmers will face a shortfall in payments. That will not happen in Scotland, because the Scottish Government have committed independently to continuing payments at the same level as currently. The National Farmers Union president, Minette Batters, said:
“Expecting farmers to run viable, high-cost farm businesses, continue to produce food and increase their environmental delivery, while phasing out existing support and without a complete replacement scheme for almost three years is high risk and a very big ask.”
The wisdom of pursuing such changes at a time of such broad upheaval is a challenge for the industry and perhaps deeply questionable.
It is also necessary that the UK Government clarify that there will be no undermining of the Scottish Government’s ability to set and administer support for agriculture in whatever way they see fit. The statutory instrument makes changes concerning the new system of direct payments for farmers in England, including setting a ceiling on payments in England. Can the Minister assure me that that will result solely in positive consequences for Scotland through Barnett consequentials?

Victoria Prentis: It is lovely to have you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. A large number of questions have been asked. I will endeavour to answer them as best I can, but if I miss any, hon. Members should not hesitate to catch up with me afterwards.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) mentioned avian flu and his constructive approach, which we have discussed outside the Chamber. As is clear, poultry will not initially be part of this new scheme, but I have asked and have been assured that the scheme and the new framework is sufficiently flexible possibly to include poultry one day if that were considered sensible. The service will be delivered by Livestock Information Ltd, which will be a public company jointly owned by DEFRA and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, and its constitution will ensure that both Government and the farming industry are involved in key decisions.
The projected monetised net benefit over a 10-year appraisal period is, conservatively, £30 million. We might well hope for better. The new system is not yet live, but the existing sheep service is due to transition to the new arrangements in the spring of 2021. Cattle and pig services—pigs, in particular, are dealt with quite differently at the moment—are due to transition to the new service in 2022. The new service does not replace the individual traceability services run by the devolved Administrations. All data provided by the DAs and DEFRA to enable the AHDB to run the UK view will be handled in accordance with the data-sharing agreement that will be agreed by all Administrations. The AHDB will not be able to use data outside the terms of that agreement.
An important part of the traceability aspect of the programme is the work with the DAs to share data to ensure seamless traceability throughout the UK, which is important. DEFRA and the DAs will enter into an agreement to control and share data jointly—that is the UK view—and each territory’s traceability systems will be able to communicate with each other to support day-to-day business operations. That is clearly important for all parts of the UK.
Let me turn to the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which was focused, as we said at the time, on maintaining the status quo as the UK left the EU. It was not there to extend the scope of the regulations beyond 2020. The Agriculture Act is, in my view, the proper place for our post-2020 changes, which is why we have introduced this SI. The changes in the SI are not specific to 2021, so we will not need to bring forward SIs to deal with direct payments in future years of the transition.
I reassure the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) that Scotland has not been short-changed. Our manifesto committed to guaranteeing the current annual budget to farmers in every year of this Parliament, and we are delivering on that manifesto. The Secretary of State mentioned this several times when asked about it when he gave his statement to the House on the agricultural transition plan—was that only on Monday, Madam Deputy Speaker? I repeat what he said: EU funding currently still flows to the various nations and we will top that up to the agreed level, which is £595 million for Scotland annually. We used 2019 exchange rates, which were very favourable—a good thing—and that means that our commitment is greater than that which was spent under the common agricultural policy.
The Rural Payments Agency was mentioned, and I thank it enormously for its work to pay farmers over the past two or three days. The figures this year have been superb. A number of Members of this House who are in receipt of direct payments have been at pains to come up to me to thank me for their speedy payment this year, and I know that many farmers are impressed with the current service. I have a great deal of confidence in the RPA and I am very grateful to it for its hard work in these difficult times.
Although they were broadly out of the scope of this debate, I wish to take a few moments to respond to some of the substantive points made by the hon. Member for Cambridge about “The Path to Sustainable Farming”, which we published on Monday. This document is an important publication that sets out detail on the early years of the agricultural transition, including, of course, the reductions that we are going to make to direct payments. In 2021, we intend to apply a reduction of 5% to the first £30,000 that a farmer might receive. Higher reductions will be applied to amounts in higher payment bands. We intend to legislate for those reductions in an affirmative statutory instrument early next year. We will then reduce direct payments by around 15% in both 2022 and 2023.
The money each year will still go to farmers. We will ensure that they can access new schemes as receipts from direct payments fall. In 2022, we will start to roll out some core elements of the new schemes, and our sustainable farming incentive will support new approaches to farm husbandry. We are also offering a range of interventions to help farmers to get their businesses ready for transition, including a slurry scheme and a research and development scheme, and from 2022 we plan to offer an exit-support scheme.
We have confirmed our intention to make further simplifications to direct payments schemes from the 2021 scheme year. These simplifications will be made through a separate statutory instrument, which we intend to lay shortly. Changes will include removing the so-called “greening rules”—if ever anything were misnamed. it is those; they are in fact complicated red tape and have delivered very little for the environment—removing the requirement for farmers to use all direct payment entitlements at least once every two years; improving the arrangements for farmers whose land crosses borders between our nations; and extending the application period for farmers to make force majeure applications.
2021 is going to be a crucial year for agriculture and we will continue to work with farmers to get the start of the transition right, including consulting on delinking  of direct payments and exit schemes and starting the national pilot for the new schemes. We are keen to continue working with Members on both sides of the House as we progress our reforms.
Turning to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), let me say that of course his mummy knows best. I learnt to cook at her school, so I have always been a big fan of his mummy. I went on a catering course there. It was a very long time ago, I am ashamed to say, but I use what I was taught almost every day of my life and I think of her often. As he mentions my dad, I also ought to mention that it is his 78th birthday today—so he is only slightly older than the average basic payment scheme recipient. It is right that in a debate about farming he is congratulated on his birthday. My hon. Friend made a thoughtful speech, and his local farmers should be grateful for not only his mother’s support, but his. I welcomed his input into the Agriculture Bill Committee. He is right to mention the more philosophical aspects. It is right that we discuss those as we make the most important changes in British farming for 50 years. I reassure him that I very much feel it is my job to stand up for British farming, and I believe that this Government, who have committed to total spend on agriculture for each year of this Parliament that is generous and right, will do that.
A few other points were made on the WTO statutory instrument. The powers given to the Secretary of State by part 6 could not allow the Government to deviate from the standards on animal welfare or animal food labelling. We discussed that in Committee at length. The issues are not within the scope of the agreement on agriculture, so the Agriculture Act simply could not apply in that way. The instrument is reserved to the UK Government because the functions within it simply cannot be exercised by the devolved Administrations—they do not have the legislative competence to act in these  matters for other parts of the UK. However, I would like to say, as I have said before, that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland officials have worked closely throughout the process of drafting these regulations and the final version takes into account the views of all four Administrations.
I am sorry that I have taken rather longer than anticipated, Madam Deputy Speaker, but a number of important questions were raised. I hope I have been able to answer them. What I hope will be clear to Members is how important these instruments are in implementing the intentions of the Agriculture Act. They provide continuity and certainty for stakeholders and beneficiaries in continuing direct payments beyond 2020. They enable us to fulfil our international obligations on agriculture and they provide the basis for the beginning of the agricultural transition. I urge the House to accept them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.

AGRICULTURE

Resolved,
That the draft Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.—(Victoria Prentis.)

AGRICULTURE

Resolved,
That the draft World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.—(Victoria Prentis.)

Exiting the European Union (Plant Health)

Victoria Prentis: I beg to move,
That the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 10 November, be approved.

Eleanor Laing: With this we will take the following motion:
That the draft Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 10 November, be approved.

Victoria Prentis: These statutory instruments will establish the future plant health regime for Great Britain by ensuring that EU legislation relating to phytosanitary controls, which is retained under the EU withdrawal Act, is operable after the end of the transition period. Devolved Administrations have given their consent to these SIs.
It is our responsibility to protect biosecurity across plant and animal health and the wider ecosystem. It is important that our biosecurity protections are aligned to address the specific and often unique risks that relate to Great Britain. These regulations are specifically about protecting plant biosecurity.
On the plant health SI, this makes operability amendments to the retained EU plant health regulation to reflect the risks to Great Britain, rather than the risks to the wider EU, and to reflect the EU’s status as a third country after the end of the transition period. There are amendments to implement a new UK plant passport in place of the current EU one, with the format of the new document set out within the SI.
From the end of the transition period, Great Britain will also no longer use the EU protected zone arrangements and will instead move to using pest-free areas, an internationally recognised classification that allows countries to take additional protective measures against incursions from pests which are established elsewhere.
The SI also makes transitional provisions to allow the continued flow of trade and to reflect the phased import requirements detailed in the published border operating model. Phytosanitary certificates will be required for those plants and plant products from the EU that pose the highest biosecurity risk to Great Britain from 1 January, where import controls for lower-risk plant material will be phased in gradually from April.
This SI makes operability amendments to the Official Controls (Plant Health and Genetically Modified Organisms) (England) Regulations 2019 to correct references to EU legislation. It also makes consequential amendments to fees legislation, including amendments to allow charging for services relating to exports to the EU.

John Redwood: It is very important that we have very high standards and I am glad that we are doing that, but will my hon. Friend also ensure that they are high standards that help domestic growers, because we need to have more home-grown food on British plates and more jobs in agriculture in Britain?

Victoria Prentis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. This is a matter that he and I have discussed before and I know that he is every bit as ambitious for the future of British horticulture as I am. I really do think that there is more that we could be growing here and I very much hope that, in the next few years, that comes to pass.
This SI also contains amendments to primary legislation to remove references to EU obligations. These changes have no operational impact, but simply remove redundant and inoperable references to EU obligations.
I turn to the phytosanitary conditions SI. This sets out the lists for Great Britain of quarantine pests, provisional quarantine pests, pest-free area quarantine pests and regulated non-quarantine pests. It also sets out measures in relation to the introduction of plants, plant products and other relevant objects into Great Britain and the movement of these within Great Britain.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for giving way and for outlining the regulations. In relation to Northern Ireland, which has built a fantastic reputation on a top-quality product, and most of the agri-food sector we have export, what discussions has she had with the Minister in Northern Ireland and would those discussions ensure that our high-quality standards would be maintained as well, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Victoria Prentis: The hon. Gentleman is a great champion for his farmers. This SI is related to GB only, but I assure him that I speak very frequently to the Minister in Northern Ireland. I have not done so this week, but I do generally often and I probably will in the course of the next few days. I know that he and I are both committed to very high standards in British agriculture.
In making these operability changes, we are focused on ensuring that the phytosanitary controls reflect actual risks to Great Britain. The risk assessment process follows the UK’s well established risk management methodology using our UK plant health risk register as our principal screening tool. Applying this evidence-based process to determine our lists of regulated plants, products and pests for the future has resulted in increased focus on the threats about which we really need to be concerned. For example, some pests that pose a risk only to citrus, rice and other tropical crops, which we do not grow, have been deregulated. This has positive impacts, as it allows our inspectors to focus their efforts on the higher-risk commodities about which we are concerned, such as Xylella hosts, and tree species such as plane, which we are really worried about. This approach means that items that have previously been subject to restrictions or prohibitions even though the risk is in fact negligible, such as mangos, curry leaves and so on, are now able to be imported into Great Britain free of restriction.

Luke Evans: It will not have escaped the Minister’s notice that we are actually in a pandemic, and protection and prevention for our environment before getting to that stage are really important. How robust does she believe the implementation of this legislation will be in ensuring that we are indeed as protected as we can be?

Victoria Prentis: My hon. Friend makes an important point. These statutory instruments are broadly transferring rules into GB law, but we are able to use this moment in our history to ensure that they are better suited to us and the biosecurity risks that concern us. As he says, in the midst of a pandemic that takes on a special and added significance.
Protecting biosecurity is of enormous importance for any Government. It is important that we facilitate the import and movement of plant material, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said earlier, but this must be done in a biosecure manner. That is why these operability amendments, with their focus on risks to GB, are so important. They establish our future plant health regime and ensure that the current phytosanitary protections, which are vital to protect our biosecurity, are maintained at the end of the transition period. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

Daniel Zeichner: I echo the Minister’s points about just how important these measures are. At first sight, they perhaps seem slightly impenetrable and very lengthy. The two instruments run to some 272 pages and 76 pages, and I doubt whether any of us has the energy or the expertise to be absolutely certain that everything is correct. As we have said in many other statutory instrument debates, it is probably only the people who are drafting them who really know that for sure. So there is always some cause for concern. On a personal level, I remember visiting the fantastic Sainsbury laboratory in the University of Cambridge a few years ago to be briefed on ash dieback. It is striking to see not only the excellent work that is being done to tackle these issues but the constant threats that we are facing. That is why it is so important that these controls are in place and that they are transposed in the correct way.
We are told that these two SIs have been laid using powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and that their stated aim is to protect biosecurity and support trade by ensuring that effective phytosanitary controls continue to operate within GB and between GB and the EU at the end the transition period. We are also told that they establish the future plant health regime for Great Britain by ensuring that EU legislation related to phytosanitary controls is retained—and corrected as necessary, as the Minister has explained—to maintain the existing risk-based approach. The Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Forestry Commission will be delivering the measures in these regulations, and we are told that they are developing an implementation plan and that associated guidance will be published on gov.uk. We are also told that separate legislative arrangements will be needed for Northern Ireland in order to maintain alignment with sanitary and phytosanitary-related EU regulations and to specify requirements for GB goods entering Northern Ireland. Well, that is probably an understatement. I would echo some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I will return to that later.
The Government say that the amendments introduced are technical operability amendments and do not include any policy changes. That is what is said, of course, of many statutory instruments and we may beg to differ at some point. It appears that no impact assessments have been carried out, and that the regulations were not  reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and had not been raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As we have heard, the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 make operability amendments to the retained EU plant health regulations, as well as consequential amendments to domestic law. The draft Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 defines at some length, as I have said, the list of regulated products and pests, and prescribes the requirements for entry and movement of regulated items into GB and within GB to reduce the risks in connection with those pests to an acceptable level.
Since the result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is that the UK leaves the EU single market, the operability amendments contained in this instrument create a single market covering GB and the crown dependencies. The EU will thus become a third country and, as a result, will be subject to third country import controls. The Government tell us that the current policy of risk-based plant health controls applied under EU legislation will continue, and that the GB risk assessment process will follow the same internationally accepted principles and approach used in previous pest risk analysis under the EU regime. Internal controls will also continue to apply to the movement of goods within the GB internal market.
We are also told that the revised approach for EU imports will be phased in over six months from 1 January next year, in the Government’s words, to
“stagger the operational implementation of controls on EU products to allow trade to continue to flow whilst businesses adapt to the application of third country import controls. This will be a temporary and risk-based transitional arrangement, with the aim of ensuring consistent and technically justified import controls which apply to all countries exporting to GB.”
The instruments also include a requirement to use UK rather than EU plant passports for intra-GB movements of plant-passported commodities. This will require businesses that move plant-passported commodities within GB to modify the reference code they use when issuing plant passports, replacing EU with UK. The process for authorising businesses with plant passporting, we are told, will not change. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tells us that
“businesses who will need to use the system from 1 January 2021 are likely to already be registered. Therefore, we expect no extra impact on business from this change.”
Some questions follow from all of that. In 7.2 of the explanatory notes for the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, it says that under these regulations our risk-based plant health controls will now
“focus on risks to GB, rather than risks to the EU”.
I was going to ask the Minister to explain what that means in practice. I think she has made reference to that already, but to repeat my question from previous debates around report and review, can she tell us when these policies will be reviewed and where that sits in relation to reviews already promised to be undertaken by the EU? Should the EU tighten their standards, would we be doing likewise and vice versa?
As I have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, these are very, very lengthy, detailed instruments. I am eternally grateful to Greener UK, which has found the time to look at them in some detail. It raises some points, as it  often does, that I suspect the Minister may wish to write to me on, because they are detailed and I would not expect her necessarily to have an answer to hand. She may do—she may surprise me. Greener UK tells me that regulation 28(24)(c) changes the requirement in article 25(4) of EU regulation 2016/2031. This is in the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020—the first one, I think. Deep in that regulation there is a change for the UK to establish priority pest plans for all listed pests within four years of the 2019 EU regulation, to instead set a deadline of 1 January 2023. This is in line with the previous timescale. However, the clause also adds a line, 4A, disapplying that requirement to any priority pest removed from that list before the same date. While the intent behind that may be simply to clarify, it would be superfluous to create a plan for a pest that is no longer considered a threat. In the view of Greener UK, this explicit reference appears to potentially incentivise the late development contingency plans. It may well be that that is covered by some of the points that the Minister has already made about the differing threats that we face. However, will she outline the UK’s progress in developing such plans to date, clarify whether the Government still intend to produce such plans for further priority pests currently listed in the EU level, and provide any details on intended timescales? Will she also tell us whether the Government have any plans to change the current list after the end of the transition period and whether any changes will be subject to the same risk assessment process used currently by the EU?
On equivalence investigations, regulation 30(7) amends paragraph 2 of article 44 of regulation 2016/2031, and removes a reference to the Commission’s ability to carry out investigations in third countries to determine whether equivalence is being properly achieved. It does this without replacing it with a reference to an appropriate UK body. Determinations of equivalence in biosecurity and control measures will be vital to protect the UK’s natural ecosystems in future. This reference therefore appears unhelpful, and the reason for deletion is unclear. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could explain the reasoning and outline how the Government propose to ensure the legitimacy of claims of equivalence from third countries, and whether investigations will form a part of this approach. That seems to me to be a rather important point. As I say, I do not necessarily expect an answer today, but it would be helpful to have one at some point.
The third point raised by Greener UK is on amending regulations. In a number of places, references in EU regulation 2016/2031 via article 107(2) to a specific examination procedure for scrutinising and adopting amendments to regulations, as contained in article 5 of reg 182/2011, are removed. The examination procedure was designed to provide an additional level of scrutiny to implementing decisions relating to specific areas of concern, including the environment, security and safety, or protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants. These references to the examination procedure are replaced now with a power to amend regulations that does not feature an opportunity for scrutiny. For example, reg 30(17) replaces a requirement to follow the examination procedure with:
“The appropriate authority may by regulations amend Annex 9 to the Phytosanitary Conditions Regulation where the amendment  is appropriate in the light of a risk assessment in relation to a plant, plant product or other object.”
Removing a defined process for strong committee-level scrutiny—that is, us—and decision making and replacing that with a standard reference to the right of the appropriate authority to make regulations represents, in the view of Greener UK, an unhelpful weakening of oversight, and I rather agree. This will be particularly pertinent if the Government choose to pass future regulations via the negative procedure. Will the Minister explain why the EU examination procedure could not be replicated within the UK context to provide clear democratic oversight of amendments? Will she outline how the Government propose to ensure that levels of scrutiny for secondary legislation pertaining to
“the environment, security and safety, or protection of the health or safety, of humans, animals or plants”
will not be weakened as a result of these changes?
I am grateful to Greener UK for finding these detailed points. As I said, I do not necessarily require a reply today. I will conclude with some more basic questions. At paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory notes for the Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 we are told:
“This will be a temporary and risk-based transitional arrangement for plant health controls”.
How long is temporary, and how much risk, because I am not entirely sure that I like the sound of that? It sounds like an excuse to me.
There has been no impact assessment of these regulations on businesses, yet there are clear indications that businesses will be impacted. Under these regulations, the revised approach for EU imports will be phased in over six months from January 2021 to
“stagger the operational implementation of controls on EU products to allow trade to continue to flow whilst businesses adapt to the application of third country import controls.”
Businesses moving plant-passported commodities within GB will need to modify the reference code that they use when issuing plant passports from EU to UK, so why has there not been an impact assessment of these regulations? Is it really presumed that there will be no impact on businesses at all?
The logic of paragraph 12.4 of the explanatory notes for the Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 is, frankly, “Alice in Wonderland” stuff. It outlines the extra checks that will be done, which I applaud, but goes on to say that because they are a result of the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and therefore do not reflect a change in policy, there is no need for an impact assessment. Can the Minister explain whether there has been an impact statement somewhere else? If so, where?
Finally, as I suggested at the outset, the bald statement that
“For Northern Ireland, separate legislative arrangements will be needed in order to maintain alignment with Sanitary and Phytosanitary related EU regulations and specify requirements for GB goods entering Northern Ireland”
is an understatement. Could the Minister outline what those separate legislative arrangements will look like and when they will be ready?
As ever, there are many questions. Ensuring plant health really matters. We are an island, but sadly, we need to be careful, and that is why we have a body of  established law. It should not be weakened in any way, and while there is no desire for unnecessary extra checks, we all benefit when we stay safe.

Dave Doogan: Both these SIs continue the legislative decoupling of Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK, replacing mentions of “the UK” and “the Union” with “Great Britain”. We have discussed the operational requirements for these measures over the last 20 minutes, but it is telling nevertheless. They serve to highlight the additional restrictions, barriers and hurdles that will face food and drink exporters after the end of the transition period. They are an unfortunate but necessary reminder of the inordinate legislative and bureaucratic challenge that accompanies the UK’s departure from the EU.
The Horticultural Trades Association has called for a delay in the implementation of these regulations and checks on plant imports. In a roundtable discussion in mid-November, the HTA raised concerns that
“The proposals as currently envisaged are logistically impossible to implement”
and that
“The requirements will not achieve the objective of improved plant health because of their complexity and the administrative and financial burden they impose”.
The HTA also understands that the required IT systems are not ready or fully tested, and it says that the Government are
“pressing ahead with compromises that are wholly iniquitous for the industry”.
Given this concern from industry, what assurance can the Minister provide that these measures will promote and support the sector, which relies on £350 million-worth of plant imports? It would be devastating to the industry if imports in the new growing season were disrupted even to a reduced or marginal extent.
HTA chairman James Barnes said:
“It is imperative that government understands their proposals represent the biggest single non-tariff barrier in the history of our industry. By asking us to comply with new terms and conditions not yet agreed, with just 32 working days to go, represents an absolute ‘train crash’ for the industry and is setting us up to fail.”
That chimes with my observations on issues related to horticulture such as seasonal farm labour and the broader agricultural debate, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised in the previous debate in terms of the Secretary of State’s ambitions for lamb under import substitution. Those things taken in tandem, and a range of others besides, indicate that DEFRA Ministers, if they are not careful, inhabit some abstract bureaucratic ideal world and appear dangerously disconnected from the operational realities facing our farmers, growers and processors. Does the Minister think that the Horticultural Trades Association is wrong, and if not, why does it have such a negative impression of these provisions?

Victoria Prentis: I find that I am being asked by one hon. Gentleman to display my legal and obsessive statutory instrument skills and by another to assure him that  I am not out of touch with farmers and will be going home to look after the sheep tonight. I can assure them that both those skillsets are very useful in a modern farming Minister.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made slightly rude comments about the length of my statutory instruments. I am afraid that these transitional SIs are necessarily long because we are simply amending the retained EU legislation. We are doing it in a way that genuinely makes it current, to reflect the risks to GB. The extensive instruments have been through the normal checking procedures, including several pairs of eyes’ checks by DEFRA and other Government lawyers—as the hon. Gentleman knows, I was one for 17 years—so I am fairly confident that they are good enough. They have been well scrutinised by the JCSI, on which I sat for a number of years, and the devolved Administrations, and the versions we are debating today include helpful amendments that were made by all those people, so I am fairly confident that the instruments are up to scratch. I am as confident as I think we can be. I accept, however, that they are long.
The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about replacing the oversight of the Commission. EU functions have already been incorporated into the UK-wide plant health risk group arrangements. Those functions include the auditing system of SANTE F and decision-making structures such as the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed technical committee. A sub-group of the plant health risk group will be responsible for all technical aspects of these audits. In addition, there is a national IT system, which is operational now, that replaces the EU notification and rapid alert system. The UK system has been backfilled with publicly available data from EU systems, so I am confident that the UK will be able to continue to benefit from that at the end of this year.
As I said earlier, from 1 January, GB is introducing a phased import regime for EU goods to maintain biosecurity and to keep trade as frictionless as possible. The phased EU import regime will allow time for trade to adapt to the new import requirements for EU goods. GB plant health authorities are undertaking significant recruitment to increase the number of plant health inspectors. The numbers have gone from about 200 inspectors employed by the Animal and Plant Health Agency to more than double that, and I believe the ambition is for 250 extra to be in place early next year. We have sufficient resources to meet demand from the turn of the year and to ensure minimal disruption to trade.
GB plant health services are currently reviewing their operating hours to ensure that biosecurity standards will continue to be met and strengthened in ways that support trade and smooth the flow of goods while minimising the burden on businesses. There has been enormous engagement with the horticultural industry on the planning for this, with individual operators and key stakeholder groups. Most recently, we have undertaken a series of feasibility sessions, with more than 300 participants on the Zoom, and equivalent export sessions. Alongside that, we are hosting a series of webinars—there was one earlier this week, I think—on the new plant health requirements for imports, exports and internal movement.
For goods imported from the EU, which the hon. Member for Angus raised, GB will be carrying out a phased implementation of import checks, which will be aligned to the risks posed by different regulated commodities. Lower-risk goods will receive a lower frequency of checks.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In order to prepare for the end of this year, it is essential that we have the right legislation in place to continue to protect plant biosecurity while facilitating trade and movement of plants and plant material. I hope that hon. Members fully understand the need for these regulations, which ensure that existing regimes for safeguarding Britain’s biosecurity will continue to operate effectively at the end of this year by addressing plant health risks faced by GB rather than the EU. I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Exiting the European Union  (Plant Health)

Resolved,
That the draft Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 10 November, be approved.—(Victoria Prentis.)

Petition - Binley Woods local pharmacy

Mark Pawsey: I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents in my constituency of Rugby regarding the decision by NHS England to remove the local pharmaceutical services contract from MW Phillips Chemist in the village of Binley Woods, which is where I grew up. The petition has run alongside an online petition on the same issue. Together, the two petitions have been signed by 849 people.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Rugby,
Declares that the local pharmacy in Binley Woods is a lifeline and hub to more than 3,000 residents; and further that it is deplorable that NHS England and NHS Improvement, Midlands Region, have decided to remove the Local Pharmaceutical Services (LPS) Contract from the Pharmacy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with NHS England and reverse this decision, and to ensure that the pharmacy can continue to provide medical, wellbeing and social care for both the young and elderly population within Binley Woods and the adjacent villages.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002631]

Petition - Independent Review of Dyfed-Powys Police

Nia Griffith: My constituents and their daughter Carina were put through months and years of anguish on the basis of evidence collected against National Policing Improvement Agency guidance for which the police have never apologised, so I rise to present to the House the petition of Julia and Robin Burn.
The petition states:
The petition of Julia and Robin Burn,
Declares that, in 2010, in conducting their investigations into allegations made against the petitioners, Dyfed-Powys Police did not proceed in accordance with the appropriate National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) guidance; further declares that these allegations were later found to be groundless and without merit; further that this resulted in the petitioners’ mute autistic daughter being taken into local authority care for six months; and further that, after no further action was taken, no attempt was made to return her.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to instigate an independent review of Dyfed-Powys Police’s handling of this case.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002633]

Eleanor Laing: I now suspend the House for three minutes in order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in the previous item of business and the safe arrival of those who anticipate with great delight the next item of business.
Sitting suspended.

Coronation Street: 60th Anniversary

Lindsay Hoyle: We are about to start the Adjournment debate. Some Members from the north-west were determined to come here and, quite rightly, Tracy Brabin came to me and said, “Mr Speaker, we ought to be aware that it is a very important event, and I would like to have an Adjournment debate.” How could I stop that?
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Eddie Hughes.)

Tracy Brabin: What an enormous pleasure it is to be able to discuss the much-loved British institution of “Coronation Street”, as it reaches the grand old age of 60 and is still going strong. Our constituents have gone through so much in these last few months, and it is nice to be in this place to discuss something upbeat and positive. Reaching its diamond anniversary is a phenomenal achievement, especially as it remains so incredibly popular, attracting an average audience of—can you believe that it is more than that of the Parliament channel?—7 million viewers for each show.
First screened on 9 December 1960, “Corrie” was part of a new realism that was sweeping through the theatre, with “Look Back in Anger”, James Dean, Brando, and kitchen-sink dramas. Hardly anyone had a colour telly—remember that?—and there was no such thing as a remote. There were certainly no streaming channels, and we turned the telly off at 11 and went to bed. Created by scriptwriter Tony Warren, “Coronation Street” did not have a straightforward beginning, and was originally rejected by Granada television before being commissioned to run for 13 episodes. It was a slow burn, with Daily Mirror columnist, Ken Irwin, saying that it would “only last three weeks.” Earlier this year its 10,000th episode was broadcast, and in 2010, it became the longest running television soap opera in the world, earning a place in the “Guinness Book of Records.”
Set in the fictional working-class Weatherfield in Salford, “Coronation Street” has never disguised its roots. It is warm and authentic, at times laugh-out-loud funny, and at other times deeply affecting. From the very beginning, the northern dialect was used. I do not know if any hon. Members are old enough to remember those early episodes, with a young man by the name of Ken Barlow achieving a university place and finding himself embarrassed about his working-class upbringing. As a proud northerner, that is not something I have ever felt, and I am proud that this show, which is as much a part of British culture as a nice cuppa, a fish ’n’ chip supper, or sitting down to the Queen’s speech on Christmas day, is played out in a working-class community in the north.
In among the love stories, the breakups, the punch-ups, and the laughs over a hotpot, “Corrie” has always been true to the everyday difficulties that life, particularly working-class life, can bring, with strong feisty women at the centre of the action. As Ena Sharples classically said, “I don’t expect life to be easy. I’d think very little of it if it was”—a good rule of thumb for the moment.
Since those early days on the street, we have witnessed one or two things happen to the people of Weatherfield over the decades—many things—and those famous cobbles  have been the stage to storylines that have gripped our country. We have cried together, gasped together, laughed together, and learned together. There have been iconic storylines that caused the nation to take a breather from people’s busy lives, make a cuppa, and pop “Corrie” on the telly—the train crash, the tram crash, the whodunnits, Richard Hillman’s reign of terror, Alan Bradley being killed by a tram in Blackpool, Deirdre, Ken, and Mike’s love-triangle! A certain Tony Blair got involved in the campaign to Save the Weatherfield One, when Deidre was falsely imprisoned, and a certain Tricia Armstrong was sent to prison for not paying her TV licence, and then gave birth behind the bar in the Rovers Return. Alongside all the entertainment, “Coronation Street” has bravely challenged us and our way of thinking with groundbreaking storylines.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lindsay Hoyle: Mr Shannon, you are more than welcome to intervene. You might even want to speak later, as we have a little time. Northern Ireland’s answer to Albert Tatlock, come on in.

Jim Shannon: I am not sure how to respond, Mr Speaker. “Coronation Street” has been going all my life, and a wee bit more; and I understand, Mr Speaker, it has been going all your life, and a wee bit more as well. My wife is a tremendous fan of “Coronation Street”. She never misses it. Last week, in self-isolation for the second time, I sat and watched “Coronation Street” on numerous occasions with my wife in control of the remote, so I was not able to turn over.
There was a poignant storyline last week about the loss of a young boy called Oliver. We watched every night it was on during the week, and a person would need a heart of stone not to be moved by that story, how they portrayed in a soap what affects people in reality. The soaps have a tremendous role to play in telling the stories of real life out there, and last week “Coronation Street” did that with real passion, understanding, carefulness and caution—

Lindsay Hoyle: Mr Shannon, I said you could intervene. I will put you down to speak. You do not need to make a speech in an intervention.

Tracy Brabin: That was a really excellent intervention, because it highlights the quality of the writing and the pressure that the crew and the actors are under, in this time of covid, to deliver those performances while being two metres apart, while wearing masks in public areas and while having all those other restrictions, and often in one or two takes, if they are lucky. Those authentic, passionate, emotional performances absolutely gripped the nation, and it is now on record in Parliament that they are two extraordinary actors. They will definitely be in line for awards.
The stories I spoke of have helped untold numbers to understand their own personal difficulties, to speak out and to get help if they need it. Hayley, the first ever transgender British soap character, was portrayed wonderfully by my good friend Julie Hesmondhalgh, who gripped us right to the end when she committed suicide in Roy’s arms.

Kate Osborne: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I congratulate all the team who work on “Coronation Street” on reaching this milestone. Does she agree that “Coronation Street” should be recognised for its groundbreaking storylines over the years? She mentioned the first trans character in a British soap in, I think, 1998 and how “Coronation Street” has sensitively highlighted social issues such as that, teen pregnancy, domestic violence and male rape.

Tracy Brabin: That is a great intervention, because wasn’t it groundbreaking? So many families watching that storyline in their living room may not have understood the humanity or the difficulties of being trans in 21st-century Britain, but they loved Hayley. It opens people’s mind to things they may not necessarily have experienced, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those script writers pushed the boundaries. They were very brave to have that storyline, but we loved her. We really did love that couple so much. It was absolutely heartbreaking.
To pick up on a couple of other storylines: Aidan’s suicide, which led to more calls to the Samaritans than they have ever had; Shona’s memory loss; revenge porn; racism, with the writers working closely with Doreen Lawrence to make it authentic and to give it credibility; and James, a young gay footballer struggling against homophobia. And, right up to recent days, with Bethany Platt’s sexual exploitation, David Platt’s male rape ordeal, Yasmeen’s marital coercive control and, as was mentioned, the sad death of baby Oliver. Never shying away from a difficult storyline and shining a light into the lived experience of others is what our soap operas do best. They strive to inform as well as to entertain.

Rob Butler: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. As a long-time fan of the programme and, indeed, her role in it, I am a little bit jealous, having only graced the small screen reading the news—nothing as glamorous as the Street. She mentioned the topical storyline of the challenge of being a gay footballer, but I would submit that the Street has done a great deal over many years to support challenging attitudes to homosexuality, particularly by following the experiences of existing and well-loved characters such as Todd Grimshaw or Sophie Webster as they came out, and more recently gay parents. Does she agree that it is by being entertaining that information is often best imparted and taboos are overcome?

Tracy Brabin: I thank the hon. Gentleman so much for that intervention—he is absolutely right. As we were saying about the trans character, these things could not be discussed in any other forum than that of a show. Looking at fictional characters, we wonder, “What would I think if I was that person?” Storytelling has huge power to change people’s mind.
If my history of soaps is correct, the first ever male gay kiss on television was on “EastEnders” and the first female gay kiss on “Brookside”. We must not forget the power of those shows to get that liberal view and those conversations going in people’s living rooms. As Dame Carol Ann Duffy said at the funeral of the creator of “Coronation Street”, Tony Warren,
“the millions who have loved Coronation Street for over half a century have lost their Dickens.”
Isn’t that the truth? He and others are commentators on our lives; they amplify and give opportunities to share experiences.
“Corrie” has given us actors and characters so well written and so brilliantly acted that they could be part of the family. Names such as Jack, Vera, Roy, Rita, Steve, Gail, Ken, Sally, Jim, Betty, Mike, Fred—the list could go on and on of characters so distinctive that they are recognised across the country by their first name alone. It is also a show that incubates talent, giving new actors a chance to cut their teeth on great storylines and powerful emotions. “Corrie” gave us early moments in the careers of Ben Kingsley, Sir Patrick Stewart, Joanna Lumley, Sarah Lancashire, Joanne Froggatt and Bradley Walsh. Even Sir Ian McKellen dropped by, wearing a very dodgy hat and scarf, I seem to recall.
Writers including Jack Rosenthal, Kay Mellor, Sally Wainwright and Paul Abbott have all worked in the writers room carving out brilliant plotlines and one-liners. So powerful is the writing that as a young girl I felt the trials and tribulations facing the Duckworths were as vivid as those of my own family. To go on to become part of “Coronation Street” was almost an impossible dream.

Andy Carter: I happened to switch on my TV, and when I saw “Corrie” was being discussed I had to come down and pay tribute as a north-west MP. It is not just the actors and the writers that “Coronation Street” has developed. There are also the back room staff who are so critical to delivering brilliant television day in, day out—the wardrobe team, the make-up artists, the camera operators and so on. “Coronation Street” and Granada Television have fostered and developed that talent, transforming the north-west of England into a TV powerhouse. I am sure the hon. Lady agrees, having spent time at Granada studios, that that embryonic development has played a significant role in transforming the north-west media environment.

Tracy Brabin: I could not agree more, and I will go on to talk about how creativity and the creative industries can be a powerhouse and an engine of regeneration in our communities in the north.
Let me speak a little more personally for a minute. I grew up in a housing estate in Howden Clough in Batley, watching acts at the Batley Variety Club. For a working-class kid like me, it was a source of pride and wonder that huge stars of the day, such as Shirley Bassey and Louis Armstrong, came to my bit of the world. Seeing photographs of Eartha Kitt eating chips in Dewsbury market is sort of mind-blowing. It set me on a path that was hard. I worked in precarious jobs trying to make it, sleeping on couches and living hand to mouth, like so many aspiring actors do. We all know how tough it is to get on in such industries for those who do not have rich parents,. For working-class northern actors, working on “Coronation Street” meant you had arrived. We had grown up watching it, and we wanted to be in it. I got the chance to work with the legends of “Corrie”—Jack and Vera, Raquel, Bet Lynch and Betty Turpin—watching and learning. As someone who had not been to drama school, the ability to memorise pages and pages of script overnight and bring authentic emotions and truth to the work was a skill I learned on that job.
Many may know me as Tricia Armstrong, but aficionados may also know that I joined the show for three episodes playing Chloe, a toy shop manageress. It was a Christmas episode, and I ended up on top of the roof of the toy shop with Peter Baldwin dressed as Father Christmas.  I must have impressed in that role, because I was then invited to come back a number of years later as Tricia Armstrong. That first day was, as the House can imagine, very overwhelming. Everybody in the green room was a famous face. When you have William Roache—he is now, unbelievably, 88—saying, “Would you like a cup of tea, Tracy?”, it is quite a surreal experience, as was working with Liz Dawn, who had her lines stuck all over the set like in “The Generation Game”, because she could not remember all of it. As long as there was a bit of script somewhere, she was all right. Famously one Christmas she pulled out the chicken and the lines were on the bum of the chicken as it came out—I thought, “Very convenient.” Then there was Annie Kirkbride, who we all sadly miss, who played Deirdre. Her wicked sense of humour creased us up in serious scenes.
Having struggled with the feast and famine nature of the freelance life, it was such a huge relief to have regular paid work, a paid holiday and a chance to save. More than that, it was the honour of being part of something so associated with my class and being in the homes of people every night who shared my accent and my experiences.
“Corrie” is not just about portrayal or about telling working-class stories brilliantly; it is, as the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) says, absolutely about jobs in the north. It is not just about actors and directors, but schedulers, designers, editors, costume and make-up, researchers, the props team, office staff, accountants, carpenters, electricians, painters, security guards and canteen staff—the list goes on.
Mr Speaker, you may know I am standing to be the candidate for the West Yorkshire Mayor. If I am elected, that experience on “Coronation Street” will drive my creative new deal, because our entertainment industries also have the power to build our economies, to deliver regeneration and to provide opportunity, hope and skills, and that process will take inspiration from “Coronation Street”, as it has shown us how important television can be for the economy.
“Coronation Street” has a bespoke 7.7 acre set in the north-west. It employs about 450 people and hundreds and hundreds of freelancers. It firmly cements the importance of the north in TV’s history, and in its future, too. We know it is a creative powerhouse, and the skills and talent it nurtures and develops have aided and continue to aid the gentrification of Salford.
I know that ITV takes the development of skills very seriously. To this day, it supports Tony Warren’s determination to be a champion of local talent. Tony wanted to support disadvantaged young people to get a career in an industry that is famously difficult to get started in. Shortly before his death in 2016, he worked with “Coronation Street” and ITV to establish a bursary to support local actors from disadvantaged backgrounds to train at drama schools. I can think of no better legacy for a man whose creation has brought us 60 years of public service broadcasting at its best.
The success of “Coronation Street” is built on a healthy and well-supported public service broadcasting system. In order to preserve these valuable national treasures, reforms need to be made to protect and support our PSB. I hope that the Minister, when he gets to his feet, will also reflect on that and work with the broadcasters and Ofcom to ensure public service broadcasters can continue to deliver for their audiences and, more urgently, for our regions.
Like all parts of life, covid has put massive obstacles in the path of “Coronation Street”, and the team has worked hard to overcome them. The Rovers Return is not that busy these days. The desks in the factory are slightly more spread out than they used to be, reflecting the regulations of real life, and keeping cast and crew as safe as possible while bringing familiar entertainment to our homes. While the Minister is here, let me say that large parts of film and television production have been able to get back on track thanks to the support of the Government around insurance. Screen production is part of a creative ecosystem, and to get it fully functioning once again our performing arts, theatres, music festivals and venues also need that insurance support to keep as buoyant as they can be.
During the last few months of pain and frustration, there have been many times when I am sure that many of us would have found familiarity and comfort in these words from the legendary Blanche, written by my good friend Damon Rochefort: “In my day, summit bad ‘appened you stayed home, got drunk and bit on a shoe.” I think that is quite a good metaphor for the times we live in.
If there is one thing in our country that can cross political divides, it is our love of “Coronation Street”. I am incredibly proud to have been part of the show’s history. I am one of thousands of actors, writers, producers, directors, costume makers and off-screen staff who have worked around the clock—trust me, I absolutely mean around the clock—to bring this programme to our screens year after year, decade after decade, never slipping in quality. Now I am proudly one of the millions of fans of “Coronation Street” who make the show so special, and I know that history is still there to be made, so here’s to the next 60 years.

Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you. As somebody who was born and brought up in Granadaland and who has seen “Coronation Street” develop, it would be remiss of me not to be in the Chair at the start of this debate. Shortly I am going to hand over to another north-west Chair from Lancashire—Nigel Evans, no less. It is interesting that in “Coronation Street”, they always talk about going to Chorley market, because they know the good value of Chorley market. The other thing, of course, is that Ken Morley is from Chorley; he is just one of the stars who have been in “Coronation Street”. At home I have a tray from Newton and Ridley from the set of “Coronation Street”. Both myself and Mr Evans were on “The Politics Show” and we had to answer a certain number of questions. Guess who won—I’ve got the tray!
No more from me. I call Conor Burns.

Conor Burns: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on securing this debate; I call her my hon. Friend on this occasion because we are all here today, friends of the Street. The Minister for Media and Data, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), is on the Front Bench. He knows what a long-term, dedicated, ardent “Corrie” fan I am. I have visited the set on a number of occasions with him. I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) earlier that I could just imagine the scene in the Department as the Minister’s officials grappled with putting together a script. I think we could have had a spin-off, watching them going through the history of the storylines and characters.
Mr Speaker, you mentioned the Newton and Ridley tray. One of my most prized possessions is a cobble from the original Street that was given to me in a presentation case by the cast: “To Conor Burns, a great friend of the Street and of the show.” That is used on my desk as a serious paperweight, because those cobbles are very deep.
I have visited “Coronation Street” on a number of occasions, both before I was elected to this place and subsequently; I go more or less annually. I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham in 2009, before I was elected to the House of Commons. We went for the purpose of doing a political leaflet. I wondered how to engage some of the communities in my Bournemouth constituency, so we met up with Bill Roache and had pictures taken in one of the booths in the Rovers. There were also pictures of he and I walking along outside No. 1, and of us both sitting at Ken and Deirdre’s dining room table. We did it as an interview with Bill Roache. The number of people who picked up and read a political leaflet because Ken Barlow was talking to the Tory candidate—they were just intrigued. I think it was probably the best piece of political literature that I have ever done.
I visited again a couple of years ago, and Rita and Audrey were filming in the salon the Christmas scenes. This was in October, and we were at the conference. I made the mistake of saying to Sue Nicholls that I well remembered watching her as a child on “Rentaghost”, without realising this would cause her significant offence, because it pointed out the longevity and the age gap.
My right hon. Friend the Minister worked with Lady Thatcher when, as Prime Minister in 1989, she visited the set of “Coronation Street”. I have never quite known whether this story is apocryphal or actually happened, but it was reported that people were explaining to her on the way up that Alderman Roberts runs the corner shop and Ken Barlow used to edit the local newspaper, and basically setting out who all the key characters were—Bet Lynch was the landlady of the Rovers—and she is reported to have said just before she got out of the car, to the terror of those accompanying her, “Now, which one is Alf Garnett?”
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has yet to visit “Coronation Street”, and I hope that that is something he will rectify, for those of us who are dedicated fans take great offence at the fact that, as Mayor of London, he went to the inferior “EastEnders”, but has not yet paid tribute to “Coronation Street”. The 60th anniversary would be a good occasion for the Prime Minister to go up to “Coronation Street” and say thank you on behalf of the Government and the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen went through some of the groundbreaking issues that the writers and the cast have covered, and I think that is one of the things that has embedded “Coronation Street” in the heart of the nation. It has been groundbreaking in the issues it has been prepared to cover. We have talked about the Adam Rickitt and Bruno Langley—Nick and Todd—gay kiss. There is domestic abuse dating back to Rita and Alan Bradley, but most recently with Geoff and Yasmeen. It has dealt with child death, assisted suicide, the Roy and Hayley sex change, rape, adultery, teenage pregnancy,   homelessness, stillbirth and suicide. Most recently, there were the incredibly moving scenes in which Aidan Connor committed suicide, played by the brilliant Shayne Ward, and the incredibly moving scenes—award-winning scenes, frankly—with Daniel and Sinead as Sinead died, leaving a young child behind. Daniel is played by the brilliant Rob Mallard, who is the on-screen son of Ken Barlow. I have to say that Rob, I think, is going to have the longevity of Ken Barlow and Bill Roache.
However, there is also the humour that the hon. Lady raised and talked about. Who can ever forget the scene where Blanche, Peter, Ken and Deirdre go to Peter’s meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous, and Blanche brings out all the dirty laundry to air it in public? Somebody says to her, “I am not a fan of yours”, and she replies, “I am not particularly a fan of your halitosis either.” She is desperately missed. There was the humour of Percy Sugden and Phyllis, Rita and Mavis, the relationship between Ken and Mike Baldwin, and Stan and Hilda. I remember from when I was a very young child—I have been watching “Coronation Street” for over 40 years—when they win the weekend away to a hotel. Hilda puts on some special lipstick, and Stan kisses her and says, “What does that taste of?”—“It tastes of woman, Stan, woman.” That is one of the best scenes I have ever seen.
Next week, we have the actual anniversary on 9 December. “Coronation Street” celebrated its 10,000th episode on 7 February this year. I think we should all salute everybody who has played a part over those 60 years in making it the national institution it is, and in particular Bill Roache, the longest-serving soap cast member in the world. By the way, for anybody watching this who does not know about “Coronation Street”, I would commend to them the wonderful programme “The Road to Coronation Street”, in which Bill was played by his real life son James Roache. It charts the story of Tony Warren taking this to the leaders of Granada and having it rejected, and then its being played internally and the tea ladies and others being suddenly gripped by it, and they saw the power it could have.
I end by saying this: “Coronation Street” is a family—the cast, the crew, the production teams, the writers, the directors, and everybody at MediaCity who puts so much into turning out this quality, dramatic, humorous production. They have done brilliantly during the pandemic in making sure that there are still fresh, vibrant episodes coming out at each week. I simply say, as a long-term fan, thanks to everybody involved in making “Coronation Street” for the laughter, the drama, the heartbreak, the tears and the smiles for the last 60 years. It sustains me in a positive way to know that it will be going long after I cease to be on this earth.

Jim Shannon: Mr Speaker, you enticed me to say a few words, so I feel that I should. I really want to, by the way. My intervention earlier was a speech on its own. What lovely and humorous recollections from to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin). “Coronation Street” always gives hard stories, but it also gives humour. I was thinking back on the 60-plus years that “Coronation Street” has been here—it might be here a wee bit longer—and I remember vividly the things that happened on the black and white TV, because they happened in our village of Ballywalter in the ‘60s and ‘70s. They were facts of life.
We did not have very much when we were young. That did not do us any harm, by the way. It gave us a compassion for others, I always thought. With my mum and dad in my house, while we might not have had much materially, we certainly had all the things that were important in life—the love of our parents and family. Along with the black and white TV and the storylines, one thing that resonated in my mind when the hon. Lady was speaking was the three ducks on the wall, because we had them in our house. Those might have been small things in “Corrie”, but they resonated with us. I could almost say that every one of the characters Members spoke of was so-and-so in the village. Male or female, whoever it may have been—they had the characteristics of that person. I will not say who they were, because that would not be fair, but it was people I noticed. Growing up in Ballywalter in the ‘60s and ‘70s, every one of those stories were real stories, because we could understand and relate to them.
When I got married some 33 and a half years ago, my wife loved cats and I loved dogs. I did not particularly like cats, but I realised that, if I loved my wife, I had to love her cats. That is how life is. I also realised early on that my wife was a fan of “Corrie”, and indeed of all the soaps. Such is her knowledge of all the characters and stories of “Coronation Street” and other soaps that I suspect that my good lady could become a scriptwriter for “Coronation Street”. The other great thing I have realised through all these years of marriage is that Sandra is in control of the remote whenever “Coronation Street” was on, and I have absolutely no chance of watching any other programme, be it football or whatever. That is just how life is.
I loved the mischief, the storylines and the real-life stories. When I intervened on the hon. Lady, I referred to the story of Oliver, the young boy who died on the TV programme last week. People will say that it is only a soap and not real life, but it portrays real life—I saw it in the story last week. Last week, in self-isolation with my wife, and with her in control of the remote, I really became involved in the story that they were telling. That is what the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) referred to. It was hard not to be involved, and it was hard, at the end of the week, not to be moved, emotionally, by the storyline, because I was totally gripped by what was taking place. Through all the programmes that there have been, “Coronation Street” has been able to portray heartache, pain, love and the highs and lows of life. I thank the Lord that I have never experienced what happened on “Coronation Street” last week, but some of my constituents have. That drama and that portrayal gives a feel for what is happening in the lives of others.
Of course, we have always been fortunate to have a good old Northern Ireland accent in among it all. I was just speaking to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen, trying to remember the actor’s name.

Gavin Robinson: Charlie Lawson.

Jim Shannon: Charlie Lawson—that is exactly who it is. His character married Liz McDonald. I just loved hearing his accent, because when I come here to Parliament, my Northern Ireland accent is very different from everybody else’s. Indeed, one of my colleagues and friends from the Government Benches once said to me, “All right, Jim?  I’ve really no idea what you said there—would you repeat it?” So I really do value the opportunity to be involved in this debate.

Gavin Robinson: The right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will understand this reference: in Northern Ireland, we cannot watch “Coronation Street” without enjoying the continuity announcement from Julian Simmons just before. Sadly, ITN has brought Julian to an end. If people do not understand who Julian is, I hope they check on YouTube for some of his introductions to “Coronation Street”. He always gave a précis in his inimitable, incredibly camp style. Perhaps I can give just one quote: I cannot even remember who he was talking about, but he said,
“once a lying, cheating, two-timing bigamist, always a lying, cheating, two-timing bigamist. A leopard never changes its spots—especially when it’s got a nose like a cooker hood.”

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Julian Simmons had that role as the person who tells us about the “Coronation Street” episode that is on the way, giving us that wee storyline, but his time at UTV and ITV has come to an end.
I thank everyone in “Corrie” for what they have done. What an opportunity this has been to speak, in a small way, about the good things that “Corrie” has brought into our lives, as well as the hard stories. It reminds us that life is not always roses for everyone—it is not always that way—but that it is also fun and laughter. “Coronation Street” does that exceptionally well.

Greg Smith: I thank the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) for securing this debate. We should also thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because clearly he set the business for this week and ensured that the debates on the motions before us this afternoon were going to be fairly short so that we could have a substantial, longer than usual Adjournment debate to celebrate the 60th anniversary of “Coronation Street”.
I have been a fan of “Coronation Street” since I was about seven or eight years old. It was always on in our house: my parents loved it and my grandparents loved it—and as they get through their 90s in residential care together, after 70 years of marriage, they still watch “Coronation Street” every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. It is very much a family thing that we love and enjoy the nation’s favourite street.
One of the early storylines that I can remember was the murder of Brian Tilsley in the ’80s. I may have been seven at the time and I remember not fully comprehending the storyline—the brutality of it and how a father could be taken from a family, leaving the character we know as Nick Tilsley without a father. I remember that really struck me as a young boy.
I now like to see “Coronation Street” as escapism: after a busy day in this place, I can often be found on the train back to Buckinghamshire watching “Corrie” on my iPad. My doing so also maintains domestic harmony, because I must confess that I have married into an “EastEnders” family. Often, when we have “Coronation Street” on at home, my wife finds a reason to do something else. She is very appreciative that I watch it  on my iPad on the way home. I like to try to ensure that that bit of escapism is available to me at the end of a busy day.
I have had the great honour and privilege of visiting the old set and the new set on a number of occasions, each time with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). It is a privilege not only to meet so many cast members and see them filming their scenes, but to see the incredible crew and writers—everybody who works so hard to produce six episodes a week. In television, it is no mean feat to produce six episodes a week and get them ready on time for ITV to broadcast them.
As everybody else who has spoken in this debate has said, “Coronation Street” offers us that wonderful breadth— not only the laugh-out-loud moments, the entertainment and the comedy gold, but those very serious storylines. There have been storylines, as my parliamentary neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said, that break taboos and raise awareness of things that the country is not necessarily as aware of as it could or should be. One that struck home with me—before I was elected to this House, I did some work with the UK Sepsis Trust in raising awareness of sepsis in this country—was the story of Jack Webster, who lost his leg. That really helped to raise public awareness of sepsis, to the point that, almost around the same time that that the storyline was airing, we saw in virtually every hospital and GP surgery up and down the land the “Just Ask: ‘Could it be Sepsis?’” poster going up, so it really is very powerful.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the Oliver storyline in the past few days was really difficult to watch, and the performances, particularly, of Jane Danson, Simon Gregson and Ben Price, really paid proper service to ensuring a greater awareness not only of mitochondrial disease, but of the absolute devastation that any family who loses a child must go through. As I say, it was difficult but important to watch as part of that storyline.
There have been so many other storylines. I do not want to repeat previous speeches, but the wonderful Mikey North’s portrayal of Gary Windass in the loan shark storyline over the last couple of years brought home the brutality of what can happen if people borrow money from loan sharks. Other stories include the coercive control storyline with Geoff and Yasmeen, which was so powerfully portrayed, and the David Platt male rape storyline, not yet complete in the court. We have seen domestic abuse storylines, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West mentioned, going back to Rita and Alan Bradley, and more recently, with Tyrone Dobbs. These are all highly serious issues that “Coronation Street” has helped to raise awareness of in the country, and there are so many more that I will not repeat.
As we look forward to another 60 years—hopefully more—of “Coronation Street”, there are also questions, to be serious for a moment, about the way we look at public service broadcasting. ITV is a public service broadcaster and we need to ensure that there is fairness for our public service broadcasters, particularly as they compete in advertising space with some online platforms going forward, to ensure that ITV is a strong channel  that remains not only on our televisions, but on our iPads, computers and all the other ways that we are going to consume entertainment—a competitive player in that marketplace that is not disadvantaged by online programming. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is far more versed in these matters than me, to consider that going forward, and I know that the Public Service Broadcasting Advisory Panel has now launched.
I conclude by repeating my hearty congratulations to everybody involved in “Coronation Street” on this momentous anniversary of 60 years on our television screens. I look forward, hopefully, to visiting the set on many more occasions, but until then, it is my iPad on a Monday, Wednesday and Friday night—my escapism. I wish them all a very happy birthday and 60 more years to come.

Peter Gibson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on securing the debate. I enjoyed very much hearing her share some of her insights from the Street.
Earlier this year “The Road to Coronation Street” was broadcast, bringing to life the story of Tony Warren and his journey to bring “Coronation Street” to our screens 60 years ago. He has been rightly credited as the Dickens of the 20th century. “Coronation Street” is a staple of the TV diet in our household too, faithfully consumed by my partner and more fitfully so by me. I asked my partner which particular incidents in the show over the last 30 to 40 years that we have been watching it I should refer to in my speech, and they have both already been covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns): the Hilda Ogden scene in the guesthouse and Blanche’s attempts at attending an AA meeting for Peter Barlow.
During lockdown, a number of special episodes were broadcast with a special focus on the women of “Coronation Street”. These are strong, forthright, vocal northern women who have given the nation such special characters—Ena Sharples, Elsie Tanner, Hilda Ogden, Bet Lynch and Annie Walker, to name but a few—along with hugely humorous comedy characters including Percy Sugden, Norris Cole and Roy Cropper. I am sure that, with Roy’s enthusiasm for the railways, he would be keen to support the campaign in Darlington to save locomotion No. 1.
I want to share my favourite line from “Coronation Street”. It was a spin-off episode featuring Bet Lynch. She was away in Spain, and she was being chatted up in a bar by a much younger gentleman. She turned to him and said, “Go away! I’ve got ladders in my tights older than you.” “Coronation Street” is always reflective of life in our nation, representative of powerful northern voices and mindful of current issues in our society. I commend Granada for its fantastic contribution over the past 60 years to our cultural life.

Nigel Evans: I call the fount of all knowledge on “Coronation Street”, John Whittingdale.

John Whittingdale: I am not sure I can claim that title, particularly having listened to the contributions this evening. I would like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Batley  and Spen (Tracy Brabin) on obtaining the debate and managing to unite the House. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with real admiration and affection for what is undoubtedly the world’s greatest soap.
I am delighted to join others in congratulating “Coronation Street” and ITV on the 60th anniversary. At the beginning of this year, the programme transmitted its 10,000th episode, and the 60th anniversary is next week. It is the world’s longest running soap opera, and it is still the most popular. It also demonstrates the extraordinary changes that have taken place in the media landscape over those 60 years. Today, it is still bringing in the biggest audience of any soap, but that is around 7 million, whereas in the ’90s, it was regularly getting 20 million. Indeed, the departure of Hilda Ogden in the 1987 Christmas episode had an audience of 26.65 million. It is still getting something like a third of the audience share. This just shows how linear television has changed during that time, but nevertheless, “Coronation Street” has maintained its position at No.1.
I cannot claim the encyclopaedic knowledge that has been displayed by so many Members, but I, too, have twice visited the set of “Coronation Street”. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) said, the first time I did so was with Margaret Thatcher in January 1990, and it was indeed the case that I had to brief her on the way to the set on the characters who were stars at that time. I did indeed go through all the various storylines, and she was particularly keen to visit Alf Roberts’ corner shop, because of course her own father was Alfred Roberts, who ran the grocer’s shop in Grantham. She arrived on set and was very upset to see that Alf Roberts’ corner shop had the sign saying, “Licensed to sell alcohol”. She said that that would certainly have never been allowed in her father’s shop, as he would not have dreamt of selling alcohol. Having said that, she did then visit the Rovers Return, but she was very clear that she would have a bitter lemon from behind the bar.
Some 24 years later, I was lucky enough to visit the set again. This was organised by the redoubtable Jane Luca, of ITV, whom I suspect was responsible for the visits of most of my hon. Friends who have spoken of their own experiences. She organised for the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which I was Chair of at the time, to visit the new set. This was in 2014, after the set had been transferred to the new location in MediaCityUK in Salford. I was indeed accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West, whose excitement at going to the new set I remember. We met a number of cast members, including Michelle Keegan and Sam Aston. One thing that struck me was that the set had been made slightly bigger so that two cars could drive down the street and pass each other, and 54,000 cobbles had been laid, with extraordinary attention to detail. Each cobble was both positioned and weathered in order that it remained absolutely authentic. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) referred to the extraordinary amount of ancillary occupations involved and jobs created on a major TV production—I suspect that the 54,000 cobbles employed quite a lot of people.
Over the years, “Coronation Street” has had a number of famous visitors. There is a wonderful picture of Alfred Hitchcock peering around the door of the Rovers  Return, and a young Prince Charles visited. As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen and one or two others have said, many great actors started their careers in Weatherfield; as well as the hon. Lady, we have the trio of theatrical knights, Sir Ben Kingsley, Sir Ian McKellen and Sir Patrick Stewart, as well as Sarah Lancashire and Joanna Lumley. As well as the actors, screenwriters such as Jack Rosenthal and Russell T. Davies started off in “Coronation Street”, and directors such as Paul Greengrass, Mike Newell and Michael Apted all directed episodes.
A number of the speakers in this debate have referred to the willingness of “Coronation Street” to confront difficult issues, and we have heard a number of examples of that, starting with the issue of racism in the very early episodes in the 1960s. Since then, it has addressed teenage pregnancy; domestic abuse, of both males as well as females; and transgender issues. It has even covered the challenge of someone having to try to find the money to pay the TV licence and failing, with this resulting in imprisonment. I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that almost nobody now goes to prison for a failure to pay the TV licence or meet the fine. I am sorry that in her case this came at a time when that was not true.

Tracy Brabin: It was pressure from this place that changed that law and a subsequent “Panorama” programme that unearthed all these cases of women who were sent straight to prison for non-payment. So I would like to thank the predecessors of MPs in here who saved so many women from experiencing that.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. It has been some years since anyone was sent to prison for that and I hope it does not happen again, but it was disproportionately women who suffered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) talked about the issue of raising awareness of sepsis. It is perhaps worth observing that there cannot be another street in Britain that has experienced so many disasters and so many tragedies in such a short space of time.
Of course, most recently, the programme has had to wrestle with the challenges of covid, both in terms of production and also as a storyline. Covid stopped production of “Coronation Street” in March, but it was able to resume in June under the protocols to ensure safety. I want to pay tribute to the ITV health and safety team and to Magnus Brooke of ITV who played a very large part in helping to draw up those protocols so that not just ITV Studios productions could get going again, but all the other broadcasters and film companies could, too.
I have been chairing the broadcasting, film and production working group, which has brought together representatives of all the broadcasters, film companies and production companies to discuss how we could get production going again. We have now put in place very strict protocols to ensure that production can take place safely. As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen mentioned, we have also put in place the £500 million film and TV restart scheme. She is absolutely right that one obstacle was the difficulty in obtaining insurance of productions against the possibility of their having to stop because of covid. I am glad to say that that is in place and, as a result, productions have been resumed by most of the major broadcasters and film companies, but it has required some quite inventive solutions.
I understand that, on “Coronation Street”, furniture is quite often placed between characters in order that they can remain apart and socially distanced. Indeed, in a particularly inventive way, filming of romantic scenes takes place with one actor sitting on one end of a sofa looking longingly at a tennis ball suspended from the ceiling and then, once that section has been filmed, the other actor takes their place at the other end of the sofa and stares at a different tennis ball longingly and the production crew then splice the two together so that no one can tell. It is very important not just, obviously, that production is done safely, but that a show like “Coronation Street” gets across the public messaging about the importance of maintaining social distancing and mask wearing. “Coronation Street” had the socially distanced wedding between Maria and Gary.
I fear that it is almost certain that Weatherfield would still be in tier 3 at the end of the national lockdown, which would mean that the Rovers Return would be able to supply only a takeaway service, but I hope that it would not be long before the Rovers Return would be in tier 2, which would, of course, allow the sale of alcohol with a substantial meal such as Betty’s hotpot.
The hon. Lady also rightly referred to the importance of the UK production sector and our creative industries and the need to ensure that every region and every nation of the UK benefits from them, and we have been very keen to ensure that more production is done outside London. The BBC now has a major centre in Salford at MediaCity. ITV is now located with the “Coronation Street” set there. I have also had the pleasure of visiting the “Emmerdale” set in Leeds. ITV still has a presence in Leeds and Channel 4 has now established its headquarters in Leeds. I am absolutely clear that it is very important that we continue to encourage production to take place right across the UK, because it brings enormous economic benefits in terms of jobs and wealth creation.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham referred to the importance of public service broadcasting. We are living through extraordinary changes in the media landscape that have brought huge extra opportunities for viewers in the range of content available through a number of streaming services that did not even exist two or three years ago. Now we have a choice of Amazon, Apple, Disney and Netflix, as well as Sky and the public service broadcasting companies. The PSBs have a tremendous role in supporting the UK creative industries, and while some of the streaming services are now commissioning content in this country, because we are so good at it here, the PSBs nevertheless still represent the major commissioners of UK content. We have recently established the Public Service Broadcasting Advisory Panel to examine the way in which PSB needs to adapt to this new landscape, but I am absolutely clear that there is still a role for public service broadcasting, and we will be looking at the issues and challenges facing public service broadcasters, such as the issue of prominence that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham raised.
I would like to conclude by joining all those who have spoken in paying tribute to a show that has not only brought pleasure and entertainment to millions of people over the course of the last 60 years, not just in the UK but in many other countries around the world, but also  played a vital role in raising awareness and affecting attitudes on so many important public issues. As several people have said, I look forward to at least another 60 years.

Nigel Evans: I am not going to let the moment pass without saying a few words. This is rare and exceptional, but we are going to do it, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing me to chair this part of the Adjournment debate. Congratulations, Tracy, there is nobody more appropriate than you to have this particular debate. I have to say, as well, that I have seen many Ministers answer Adjournment debates with speeches prepared by their own Departments, but John, you wrote every word of that speech. I was looking at it, and that is your handwriting. I do not know if you could read it, but none the less it is your handwriting. You have grown up with the series, as we all have in this Chamber.
I know that Mr Speaker would have wanted, in normal circumstances, to have done a big reception at the end of this debate and had many of the stars past and present in his state rooms, but I am afraid covid has meant that that cannot be. We cannot even go into the snug in the Strangers Bar, because that is closed. None the less, I am sure that at some stage we will be able to properly mark the 60 years of “Coronation Street” in the Palace of Westminster. I know that that Chamber would have been full of some of the stars looking down before we went on to the reception.
I grew up in the 1960s watching “Coronation Street” on the huge TV we had in the corner—a small screen, but a big TV—all in black and white. I lay on the floor and listened to the haunting melody on a Monday and Wednesday. My father would close the shop early in order to watch “Coronation Street” because he loved it so much. Little did I think, watching that series, that I would be chairing a debate on “Coronation Street” in the House of Commons as Deputy Speaker.
I remember once meeting Jean Alexander, the great Hilda Ogden, and I could not get over how posh she sounded when she was not being Hilda Ogden. She was such a great actress, and that is part of the thing about “Coronation Street”: the great actors and actresses—yourself included, Tracy—who have performed in the amazing, longest running soap opera in the entire world.
In the 1960s, Bill Roache opened Swansea carnival. My mother dragged me down to the front to watch Bill in the back of an open-top car. I thought I was looking at a Hollywood actor—that is the height of the fame of people who starred in “Coronation Street” in those days. Little did I think then that I would represent the Ribble Valley, in the north-west of England, in Lancashire, or that in the village I bought a house in, Pendleton, I would be living opposite Vicky Entwistle—Janice Battersby—who is now a personal friend. I went to her wedding in Manchester, when she married Andy Chapman. Lots of stars of “Coronation Street” were there.
Bill Roache, too, has become a personal friend of mine over the years—a wonderful man. He has helped me out in a couple of general election campaigns, as he has a number of people who became MPs. Bill is the longest-serving actor in the longest-serving soap. What an amazing accolade! John, you mentioned Jane Luca, and she helped me to get on to the set of “Coronation Street” as well. We are all grateful for the fantastic facilitation that Jane has given many people over the period.
Another thing that has come out about “Coronation Street” is the humour—yes, the drama, and the fact that it treat difficult subjects, but it is one of the most humorous things on TV, more than some of the other soaps on at the moment, where you feel a bit depressed at the end. With “Coronation Street”, humour runs through the entire series, the entire 60 years of its production. For me, as far as broadcasting is concerned, you can stick your “Crowns”; I am going to stick with “Corrie”, as I have for the past 60 years, and as I am sure we all will in the future.
It is a real shame that at the end of this debate, we cannot have that haunting melody of “Coronation Street” playing, which I am sure we are all thinking about now.  It is the thing that got us there to watch the show and, even at the point of highest drama, there would be silence in our living rooms as we listened to that closing melody. So thank you, “Corrie”, for everything that you have done over the past 60 years.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Deferred Division

That the draft Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 2 November, be approved.

Exiting The European Union (Food)
The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 202.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Below is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
  Kim Johnson


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West ) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Gavin Robinson


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Jonathan Edwards


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Sir Jeffrey Donaldson


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Kim Johnson


  Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Patrick Grady


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
  Sammy Wilson


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
  Stuart Andrew


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew